Ragab Mohamed Rezek v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAGAB MOHAMED REZEK,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71497
Agency No. A078-014-621
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued December 10, 2014
Submitted March 24, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Ragab Mohamed Rezek, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order dismissing his appeal of an
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum application as time-barred. The IJ
found that Rezek failed to establish extraordinary circumstances for filing his
FILED
MAR 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

asylum application approximately 16 months after the one-year deadline. But the
IJ did grant Rezek’s request for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition to review the asylum application as
time-barred under the one-year rule.
The BIA did not err in determining that Rezek did not qualify for the
extraordinary circumstances exception to the one-year bar under the circumstances
of this case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Neither Rezek’s pending adjustment
application nor his reliance on his wife’s representation that she could help him
remain in the United States qualified for the exception. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5).
Further, Rezek’s pursuit of adjustment of status was not directly related to his
failure to meet the filing deadline as he could have pursued asylum and adjustment
of status concurrently. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158; 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Rezek does
not provide any authority to support his claim that an applicant’s pursuit of another
form of relief can excuse an untimely asylum application. This lack of authority is
more glaring in this case, where the applicant was statutorily ineligible for that
alternative form of relief.
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --