Galvez Flores v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-3063
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN GALVEZ FLORES, No. 23-3063 Agency No. Petitioner, A206-149-284 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: SANCHEZ, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Juan Galvez Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review

of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal of

an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order (collectively “agency”). The agency denied his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.

1. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Galvez

Flores failed to establish an exception to the one-year filing deadline for his asylum

application. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing

Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2013)); 8 U.S.C. §§

1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). There is no dispute that Galvez Flores’s asylum

application is untimely. Galvez Flores argues that he qualifies for an exception to

the filing deadline because he faced “extreme isolation within a community,

profound language barriers, or profound difficulties in cultural acclimatization.” See

Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that an applicant

must file an asylum application within one year after arriving in the United States

unless he “establishes (1) changed circumstances that materially affect [his]

eligibility for asylum or (2) extraordinary circumstances directly related to the delay

in filing an application”).

But the agency found that Galvez Flores’s argument was unsupported by the

record because Galvez Flores spoke Spanish, a common language in the United

States, and testified that he missed the deadline because he was unaware of the

requirements. Because the agency’s finding hinges on its “resolution of an

underlying factual dispute,” and Galvez Flores fails to raise a colorable legal or

2 23-3063 constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction to review this issue. See Sumolang, 723

F.3d at 1082; see also Gasparyan, 707 F.3d at 1134. We thus dismiss this part of the

petition for lack of jurisdiction.

2. Even under a liberal construction, Galvez Flores’s pro se opening brief

fails to “specifically and distinctly” address or challenge the agency’s denial of his

claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th

908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). Galvez Flores has thus forfeited those

claims.

The petition is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

3 23-3063