Vahora v. Holder (2011)

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Congress’s paramount objective in enacting the one‐ year bar was to prevent fraudulent claims.”) (citing 141 Cong.

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Congress’s paramount objective in enacting the one‐ year bar was to prevent fraudulent claims.”) (citing 141 Cong.

In such cases, [this court] may recognize changed circumstances.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

Because we have jurisdiction over the “changed circumstances” question only if Ben Ghalba’s “petition is a question of the application of a statutory standard to undisputed facts,” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (emphasis added), we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision 2 regarding the one-year ban, see Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that we have jurisdiction if the facts underlying a claim of c…

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2011); Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942 , 946 (9th Cir.2011); Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981 , 984 (9th Cir.2010); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2008); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

Although the issue Escobar raises is one of first impression in our court, every circuit to have examined the issue - 23 - has concluded, like the Sixth Circuit in Mandebvu v. Holder, that 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D) does not impose the requirement that we understand the agency to have imposed in Escobar's case. 755 F.3d 417, 426 (6th Cir. 2014) (concluding that the agency had erred as a matter of law by requiring that "an asylum applicant, in order to excuse a delay in filing…

Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1063–64; Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047 , 1053–54 (9th Cir. 2011); Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Our law does not require that ‘changed circumstances’ constitute an entirely new conflict . . . nor does it preclude an individual who has always feared persecution from seeking asylum because the risk of that persecution increases.”).

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

“Where, as here, the [Board] adopts the [Immigration Judge’s] decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

While it is not necessary that the conditions faced by an asylum applicant invoking the statutory exception be entirely new or distinct from threats previously encountered by the applicant, see Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011), the change on which Jimenez-Valero relies—the predicate criminal proceedings—have existed, and Jimenez-Valero has known about them, for decades, see Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013).

“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011)).

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (observing that “[w]hen the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ's decision,” we review only the BIA’s decision “except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted”).

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, [we] review[] both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011). 2.

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A] petitioner might still qualify for the changed circumstances exception even if the relevant circumstances do not create a new basis of persecution but simply provide further evidence of the type of persecution already suffered.”); Vahora v. 2 Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that this exception “w[as] intended to be broad” and does not “preclude an individual who has always feared persec…

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

Petitioner’s situation is markedly distinguishable from Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 2011), where we found changed circumstances in India existed which excused petitioner’s untimeliness because deadly riots took place after Petitioner left the country, his house and farmhouse were burned down, one brother was arrested and had not been seen since, and another brother disappeared after police threatened to arrest him.

“We may review the agency’s application of the changed . . . circumstances exception to undisputed facts as it relates to the one-year filing rule.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D); Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (an alien may qualify for an exception to the filing deadline if he demonstrates the existence of changed circumstances which materially affect his eligibility for asylum). 2 17-71380 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal, where Obregon-Luna failed to show a nexus to a protected ground.

In Vahora v. Holder, the Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA where the circuit court determined that the IJ and BIA had interpreted “changed circumstances” as “requiring the applicant to show that, prior to the change in circumstances, the applicant could not have filed a meritorious application, and that the change in circumstances resulted in an application that could succeed.” 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011).

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

“Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877 (9th Cir. 2013) (observing that “[w]hen the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ’s decision,” we review only the BIA’s decision “except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted”).

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2011) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

We are aware that some circuits have concluded that these issues are reviewable mixed questions of law and fact, see, e.g., Mandebvu v. Holder, No. 11-3969, 755 F.3d 417, 425-26 , 2014 WL 2743608 at *6 (6th Cir. June 18, 2014); Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2011).

Vahora, 641 F.3d at 1044 (internal citations omitted).

Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2011).

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); cf. Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1047 (9th Cir.2011).

At the time of the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s affirmance, they did not have the benefit of this court’s recent case in Vahara v. Holder, which addressed what constituted changed circumstances sufficient to excuse late filing of an asylum application. 641 F.3d 1038, 1042-48 (9th Cir.2011).

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4); Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2011).

See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(4); Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042-47 (9th Cir.2011) (mistreatment and fear of persecution before coming to United States did not preclude showing of changed circumstances based on subsequent incidents, including disappearance of family members and destruction of petitioner’s home, which materially affected his ability to show a well-founded fear of persecution).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2011).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038 , 1044 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that § 1158(a)(2)(D) requires the applicant to demonstrate changed circumstances, which can be done by showing changed country conditions). 2.

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the petitioner demonstrated changed circumstances in part because he presented evidence that increased rioting in his home country “directly impacted” his family “in a very serious fashion”). (c) The BIA properly rejected Balderrama’s argument that he was unaware of the need to file for asylum within one year of his most recent arrival to the United States in January 2004 and that this ignorance constitu…

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038 , 1042 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)). 2 524 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D)).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Mandebvu v. Holder, 755 F.3d 417, 427 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Our law does not require that ‘changed circumstances’ constitute an entirely new conflict in an asylum applicant’s country of origin.”) (quoting Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2011)); Luhiso v. Barr, 787 F. App’x 319 , 323 (6th Cir. 2019) (“A change in circumstance is attributable to a country’s conditions if the country as a whole becomes more hostile or dangerous.”).

But Vasquez already had a pronounced fear of the gang by the time he came to the United States, so these developments did not “materially affect” the strength of Vasquez’s asylum claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D); see also Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (excusing the untimeliness of a petitioner’s asylum application where changed 2 circumstances made “his claim . . . substantially stronger”).

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 , 1015–16 (9th Cir. 2010). 2 In addition, the Lasams acknowledged that several of their family members continue to reside in the Philippines and have not been harmed. “[O]ngoing family safety in the country of origin [is] a relevant factor in assessing a request for asylum.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038,1042 (9th Cir.2011) (court may review “the agency’s application of the changed ... circumstances exception to undisputed facts”) (internal citations omitted).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir.2011).

See Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.2011). 1 2.

Win may “still qualify for the changed circumstances exception even if the relevant circumstances do not create a new basis of persecution but simply provide further evidence of the type of persecution already suffered.” Id.; accord Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir.2011); Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir.2008).

Timeliness of an Asylum Application Section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that an alien is not eligible to apply for asylum unless he or she “demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” However, an application may be considered “if the alien demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which materially a…