RAGAB REZEK V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-71497 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAR 26 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAGAB MOHAMED REZEK, No. 11-71497 Agency No. A078-014-621 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 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
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.
