Jose Carranza v. Pamela Bondi
NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Memorandum) (2025)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Pursuing other forms of immigration relief, such as an adjustment of status application, does not constitute an 'extraordinary circumstance' that automatically excuses an applicant's failure to file for asylum within the statutory one-year deadline.
Facts:
- Jose Numan Carranza was a narcotics police officer in El Salvador where he received threats from gangs and corrupt law-enforcement officials.
- He left El Salvador due to these threats and entered the United States on a six-month visitor’s visa in December 2007.
- Carranza's wife, already in the U.S., filed for an adjustment of status based on her employment, and Carranza sought to adjust his status as her derivative.
- In December 2008, Carranza was convicted of indecent exposure in the United States.
- In December 2011, Carranza's counsel discovered an error in his wife's application, realizing they were ineligible for the adjustment of status they had been pursuing.
- After his initial entry into the U.S., Carranza voluntarily returned to El Salvador on several occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- Carranza's wife filed adjustment-of-status applications with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); Carranza sought adjustment as a derivative.
- In January 2009, Carranza was served with a Notice to Appear, initiating removal proceedings against him in immigration court.
- Carranza filed a motion to terminate proceedings before the Immigration Judge (IJ), which the IJ denied.
- On January 24, 2012, four years after entering the U.S., Carranza submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection to the immigration court.
- In September 2014, the IJ held that Carranza's asylum application was untimely and denied his claims for relief.
- Carranza (appellant) appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- In February 2016, the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, denying Carranza's appeal.
- Carranza (petitioner) filed a timely petition for review of the BIA's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an asylum applicant's pursuit of other forms of immigration relief, such as an adjustment of status application, qualify as an 'extraordinary circumstance' sufficient to excuse a failure to meet the one-year statutory filing deadline?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Before Judges Wallace, Boggs, and Friedland)
No. An applicant's pursuit of other avenues of relief does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance that would excuse an untimely asylum application. The court reasoned that Carranza's pending adjustment of status applications did not prevent, preclude, or excuse him from also timely filing for asylum. Even if it were an extraordinary circumstance, his application was not filed within a reasonable period thereafter. Furthermore, the court found substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of withholding of removal, as the harm Carranza suffered did not rise to the level of past persecution, and his fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable. His testimony regarding threats was 'extremely general,' and his voluntary returns to El Salvador undermined his claim of an individualized threat. The claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) failed for the same lack of evidence.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of the one-year statutory deadline for asylum applications. It clarifies for immigration practitioners and their clients that pursuing alternative, and potentially lengthy, immigration remedies does not toll or excuse this critical deadline. The decision underscores the principle that asylum is a distinct form of relief that must be proactively sought within the statutory period, regardless of other pending applications. Additionally, the court's analysis of the withholding claim highlights the high evidentiary burden on applicants, particularly how actions like voluntary return to the country of feared persecution can significantly weaken a claim of individualized risk.
