Bocanegra Garcia v. Blanche

── Bocanegra Garcia v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO BOCANEGRA GARCIA, No. 25-3911 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-121-572 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 24, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.*** Reynaldo Bocanegra Garcia (“Bocanegra Garcia”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, sitting by designation. dismissing his appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. “When the BIA adopts and affirms an IJ’s decision and cites its Burbano decision,” we “review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA.” Tista v. Holder, 722 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558 F.3d 897, 899 (9th Cir. 2009)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Bocanegra Garcia’s application for asylum is untimely. Applications for asylum must be filed within one year after the date of the individual’s arrival in the United States, but this filing timeline may be excused by “changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); see Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the IJ’s determinations regarding the extraordinary circumstances for substantial evidence. See Ruiz v. Bondi, 163 F.4th 586, 599 (9th Cir. 2025). Bocanegra Garcia entered the United States in 2005 but did not apply for asylum until 2017. 2 25-3911  The IJ explained that Bocanegra Garcia did not meet his burden of proving an exception to the filing requirement. Bocanegra Garcia’s claim for an exception is on the basis that he believed the individual responsible for his brother’s murder, Timoteo Morales Acevedo (“Acevedo”), was to be released from prison in 2017. Because Acevedo had threatened Bocanegra Garcia and his family, Acevedo’s impending release made the threats more immediate. The IJ explained that Bocanegra Garcia did not meet his burden of proving an exception to the filing requirement, in part because Acevedo remained in prison as of 2021 and therefore Bocanegra Garcia’s cited change of circumstances was not evident. Accordingly, the evidence does not compel finding t