Guillermo Coto-Rivas v. Loretta E. Lynch

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED) [4359023] [15-1806]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1806
___________________________
Guillermo Coto-Rivas
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: January 20, 2016
Filed: January 25, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Guillermo Coto-Rivas, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge finding that his asylum application was untimely and meritless,
and also denying him withholding of removal.

Appellate Case: 15-1806

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Entry ID: 4359023

Coto-Rivas challenges the finding that his asylum application was untimely,
arguing that, because his removal was deferred and he received a temporary work
permit while he assisted authorities in investigating illegal hiring practices, he
showed changed or extraordinary circumstances that warranted a tolling of the oneyear time limit for filing asylum applications. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D).
This “question of law” falls within the exception to the normal bar to appellate review
of timeliness determinations, see Goromou v. Holder, 721 F.3d 569, 576 (8th Cir.
2013), but we conclude that the informal administrative concession represented by
these facts does not amount to changed or extraordinary circumstances that would toll
the filing period, within the meaning of the statute. Accordingly, we do not reach the
alternative finding below that, even if timely, the asylum application failed on its
merits.
Finally, after careful consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence
supported the denial of withholding of removal, see Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531
F.3d 614, 627 629 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; standard for showing
eligibility for withholding of removal), because Coto-Rivas did not show a clear
probability of persecution, i.e., that the El Salvadoran government is unwilling or
unable to protect him from the gang members whom he fears in El Salvador, see
Khilan v. Holder, 557 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (persecution
requires that harm be inflicted either by government or by those government was
unable or unwilling to control).
The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1806

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/25/2016 Entry ID: 4359023