Kui Sie v. Eric Holder, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioners don’t qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B). Petitioners argue that “extraordinary circumstances” excuse their delay because they relied on a fraudulent immigration consulting organization, the Chinese Indonesian Association (CIAS), to file their asylum applications. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(5). But, unlike Viridiana v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1230, 1238-39 (9th Cir.2011), on which petitioners rely, they didn’t pay the full fee CIAS requested, didn’t demonstrate reasonable diligence and unilaterally stopped working with the organization.

Even if reliance on CIAS were an extraordinary circumstance, petitioners’ asylum applications weren’t filed “within a reasonable period.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 (a)(5). Sie’s application deadline passed almost nine months before she approached CIAS, and the fact that she didn’t know about the possibility of asylum relief is hardly extraordinary. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2003). Simamora did contact CIAS two months before his filing due date, but then he didn’t actually file…