MARVIN MARTINEZ ALQUIJAY V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-70470 (9th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Petitioner missed the filing deadline for his asylum application by over three years and argued that he qualified for the extraordinary circumstances exception to the time limitation based on his “incapacity or legal disability” due to ignorance of the relevant immigration laws, his young age of 22 years old at the time of his arrival, his lack of English-language skills, and the stress he experienced from fleeing his home country.
 
The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his delay in filing his asylum application. The court concluded that none of the factors identified by Petitioner, either separately or in the aggregate, were of a similar nature or seriousness to the examples of extraordinary circumstances set forth in the regulation. 8 C.F.R. Section 1208.4(a)(5). The court held that the BIA, therefore, did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish the presence of an extraordinary circumstance to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application.

Court Description: Immigration. Denying Marvin Martinez Alquijay’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that the BIA did not err in concluding that Martinez Alquijay failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his delay in filing his asylum application. Martinez Alquijay missed the filing deadline for his asylum application by over three years and argued that he qualified for the extraordinary circumstances exception to the time limitation based on his “incapacity or legal disability” due to ignorance of the relevant immigration laws, his young age of 22 years old at the time of his arrival, his lack of English-language skills, and the stress he experienced from fleeing his home country. The panel concluded that none of the factors identified by Martinez Alquijay, either separately or in the aggregate, were of a similar nature or seriousness to the examples of extraordinary circumstances set forth in the regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). The panel held that the BIA therefore did not err in concluding that Martinez Alquijay failed to establish the presence of an extraordinary circumstance to excuse the delay in filing his asylum application. MARTINEZ ALQUIJAY V. GARLAND 3

Primary Holding

Denying Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Ninth Circuit held that the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his delay in filing his asylum application.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.