Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Smith, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. An informal administrative concession - deferral of removal and issuance of a temporary work permit while petitioner assisted authorities in an investigation of illegal hiring practices -did not constitute changed or extraordinary circumstances that would toll the time period for filing for asylum, and the BIA did not err in determining the application was untimely; substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1806 ___________________________ Guillermo Coto-Rivas lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 20, 2016 Filed: January 25, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Guillermo Coto-Rivas, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge finding that his asylum application was untimely and meritless, and also denying him withholding of removal. Coto-Rivas challenges the finding that his asylum application was untimely, arguing that, because his removal was deferred and he received a temporary work permit while he assisted authorities in investigating illegal hiring practices, he showed changed or extraordinary circumstances that warranted a tolling of the oneyear time limit for filing asylum applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). This “question of law” falls within the exception to the normal bar to appellate review of timeliness determinations, see Goromou v. Holder, 721 F.3d 569, 576 (8th Cir. 2013), but we conclude that the informal administrative concession represented by these facts does not amount to changed or extraordinary circumstances that would toll the filing period, within the meaning of the statute. Accordingly, we do not reach the alternative finding below that, even if timely, the asylum application failed on its merits. Finally, after careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal, see Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 614, 627 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; standard for showing eligibility for withholding of removal), because Coto-Rivas did not show a clear probability of persecution, i.e., that the El Salvadoran government is unwilling or unable to protect him from the gang members whom he fears in El Salvador, see Khilan v. Holder, 557 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (persecution requires that harm be inflicted either by government or by those government was unable or unwilling to control). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
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.
