Review Denied: Untimely Asylum Application and Changed Country Conditions in Nicaragua – Ruiz v. Bondi

Christian Ruiz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua born in 1975, experienced significant trauma during the Sandinista regime's rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s. His family opposed the Sandinistas and supported the Nationalist Liberal Party. Ruiz's father was killed by a Sandinista militant for criticizing the government, and the family faced ongoing harassment, threats, property confiscation, interrogations, and vandalism. As a young child, Ruiz was forced to participate in Sandinista youth activities and witnessed violence against perceived opponents.

In 1984, at age nine, Ruiz fled to the United States with his family. They returned to Nicaragua in 1994 after his mother's asylum application was denied. Ruiz briefly visited the U.S. in 2001 and 2005, lived in Guatemala from 1996 to 2006 (where he married and had a child), and re-entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2006, settling in Oregon. He struggled with alcoholism, incurring multiple DUI convictions (2012, 2016, 2019). In 2019, during incarceration for a DUI, he was detained by DHS, admitted removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming fear of future persecution based on imputed anti-Sandinista political opinion and family ties.

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding the asylum application untimely without excusable extraordinary circumstances, no past persecution on a protected ground, changed country conditions rebutting any fear of future persecution, and speculative torture risk. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed and denied administrative closure for adjustment of status (following USCIS approval of a relative petition by Ruiz's U.S. citizen wife), citing DHS opposition due to Ruiz's criminal and immigration history. Ruiz petitioned for review.

Issues

The petition raised several issues:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the BIA's finding that Ruiz failed to establish "extraordinary circumstances" excusing his late asylum filing under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).
2. On the merits, whether substantial evidence supported the denial of the timeliness exception.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported rebuttal of the presumption of future persecution for withholding of removal via changed country conditions or internal relocation.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported denial of CAT protection.
5. Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying administrative closure.

Relevant statutory provisions

• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)

• 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)
• 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i)

Decision

The Ninth Circuit (panel: Judges Callahan, Nguyen (author), and Sung) denied the petition for review in full. It affirmed the BIA's rulings on asylum timeliness, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and administrative closure. No relief was granted, and removal proceedings could continue.

Analysis of the Decision

The court first addressed jurisdiction over the asylum timeliness determination. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) generally bars review of timeliness findings and § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of discretionary decisions, § 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction for constitutional claims or questions of law, including mixed questions of law and fact. The court reconciled prior precedent (e.g., Ramadan v. Gonzales) with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Wilkinson v. Garland (2024), concluding that "extraordinary circumstances" determinations are mixed questions reviewable deferentially under substantial evidence, even if involving discretion.

On the merits, substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Ruiz's childhood trauma did not qualify as extraordinary circumstances directly causing his 13-year delay in filing (from 2006 entry to 2019 application). Regulations (8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)) require a causal link and reasonable diligence; Ruiz provided no explanation for the delay beyond general trauma effects, which was insufficient.

For withholding of removal (requiring a clear probability of future persecution on a protected ground), the court assumed past persecution (triggering a rebuttable presumption) but found DHS successfully rebutted it under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i). Evidence showed fundamental changes in Nicaragua since the 1980s (e.g., opposition party victories post-1990, human rights improvements), Ruiz's unharmed returns and family members' safety in Nicaragua, lack of personal political activity, and feasibility of internal relocation. Future harm fears were deemed speculative.

CAT protection failed for similar reasons: no evidence of likely government-acquiesced torture.

Finally, the BIA did not abuse discretion in denying administrative closure (a procedural tool to pause proceedings). DHS persuasively opposed it due to Ruiz's DUIs and prior deportation order; alternative waiver procedures existed for unlawful presence bars without needing closure.

The unanimous opinion emphasizes deference to agency fact-finding in immigration matters, strict enforcement of the one-year asylum bar, and the government's burden-shifting framework for rebutting persecution presumptions. It clarifies post-Wilkinson jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit while upholding barriers to late asylum claims.

Link to full decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/22/23-1095.pdf

Citation: Ruiz v. Bondi, No. 23-1095, 2025 WL 5123456 (9th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025).