FRANCO MARIN BONILLA V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 14-71082 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FRANCO MARIN BONILLA, AKA Jose U. No. 14-71082 Marraquin, Agency No. A095-010-566 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Franco Marin Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Marin Bonilla established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the oneyear filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and extraordinary circumstances); Alquijay v. Garland, 40 F.4th 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2022) (ignorance of asylum filing requirements is not an “extraordinary circumstance”). Thus, Marin Bonilla’s asylum claim fails. As to withholding of removal, because Marin Bonilla does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group, this issue is waived. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Marin Bonilla failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals 2 14-71082 motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). To the extent Marin Bonilla fears harm based on his “gang appearance” and tattoos, we lack jurisdiction to consider the issue because he failed to raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Marin Bonilla’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Marin Bonilla failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-71082
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
