Victor Rizo-Rosales v. Merrick Garland

facts.” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Husyev

v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2008). The IJ properly concluded

that Petitioner did not the satisfy the “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary

circumstances” exception to the one-year deadline. Petitioner entered the United

States in January of 2005 and had until January of 2006 to apply for asylum. That

Petitioner lacked knowledge of the law, did not speak English, and had not begun

to fear criminal violence in Mexico until he was placed in removal proceedings,

did not constitute changed circumstances. See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 657 (“The

term ‘changed circumstances’ . . . refer[s] to circumstances materially affecting the

applicant’s eligibility for asylum. . . .”) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.4 (a)(4)(i)); see

3 also Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2013) (delineating

“extraordinary circumstances” test).

2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Petitioner failed

to establish a nexus between any harm and a protected ground to support his

application for withholding of removal. Petitioner testified that he became fearful

of returning…