FRANCISCO ELIEZER PALAFOX PADILLA, AKA Hector Lopez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO ELIEZER PALAFOX
PADILLA, AKA Hector Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73238
Agency No. A200-607-476
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 12, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST,** District
Judge.
Francisco Eliezer Palafox Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
FEB 28 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in
part, grant it in part, and remand.
1. ASYLUM CLAIM
Whether or not Palafox addressed every reason for the Board’s finding that
his asylum application was untimely, Palafox’s opening brief clearly challenged
that finding and thus preserved the issue for appeal. See Brown v. Rawson-Neal
Psych. Hosp., 840 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We . . . reasonably require
parties to preserve valid issues in order to conserve judicial resources and to assist
our review.”).
The BIA properly concluded that Palafox’s application for asylum was time-
barred. Although a delay of six months after the expiration of lawful
nonimmigrant status is “presumptively reasonable,” Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d
1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2011), a nine- to eleven-year delay is not. Ignorance of
asylum law is not a special consideration excusing Palafox’s delay in filing. See
Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule,
ignorance of the law is no excuse.”). Therefore, Palafox’s petition for review
challenging the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum is denied.
2. WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL AND CAT PROTECTION CLAIMS
With respect to Palafox’s petition for review of his claims for withholding of
removal and CAT protection, we grant and remand to the BIA to consider

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Palafox’s eligibility in light of our intervening decisions in Barajas-Romero v.
Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), and Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d
1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Neither the BIA nor the parties had the benefit of
these decisions.
Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
PETITION DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --