Ramadneh v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mansour Yousef Suleiman Ramadneh, No. 21-872
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-554-698
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Mansour Yousef Suleiman Ramadneh, a native and citizen of Jordan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming
an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny
the petition.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Taslimi v. Holder, 590
F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). Where, as here, the Board “expressed agreement
with the reasoning of the [immigration judge],” we review both decisions.
Kumar v. Holder, 728 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2013). We review the agency’s
findings of fact for substantial evidence, and we review questions of law de
novo. Id.Although an application for asylum must generally be filed within one
year of the applicant’s arrival in the United States, an exception is available
when “changed circumstances . . . materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for
asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Under that exception, “[t]he applicant shall
file an asylum application within a reasonable period given those ‘changed
circumstances.’” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii). Ramadneh entered the United
States in May 2014, but he did not apply for asylum until March 2020.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that the changed
circumstances that materially affected Ramadneh’s eligibility for asylum
occurred in May 2018, when he told his family that he had decided to become a
Christian, and, in response, his brother threatened to kill him. Substantial
evidence also supports the Board’s determination that it was unreasonable for
Ramadneh to wait nearly two years after that change in circumstances to file for
asylum. Whether a period of delay is reasonable depends on the “particular
circumstances” of each case. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1058–59 (9th
Cir. 2009). Ramadneh argues that his wait was reasonable because he thought
2 21-872
that conversion required a longer process to become an “actual member of the
Christian church.” Supporting that argument, Ramadneh cites Taslimi, in which
an applicant waited seven months after her religious conversion to apply for
asylum because she wanted “to be sure of the sincerity of her faith.” 590 F.3d at
988. We held that the delay in Taslimi was reasonable, but Ramadneh’s
situation is different. Ramadneh waited much longer than seven months, and
even if he believed that his conversion process was not entirely complete, he
still considered himself a Christian, and the threats from his brother made him
aware that he already faced danger at home because of his faith. He also failed
to submit evidence that he took steps to complete his conversion during this
time.
The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
3 21-872