Marvin Martinez Alquijay v. Merrick Garland, 40 F.4th 1099

Petitioner Marvin Estuardo Martinez Alquijay, a Guatemalan union assistant secretary, fled Guatemala after armed threats to union members in 2005 and entered the U.S. in March 2006 at age 22.
He filed an asylum application in October 2010 (more than four years after entry), and DHS initiated removal proceedings in November 2009.
At immigration proceedings the IJ found the asylum application untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); petitioner argued exceptions for “extraordinary circumstances.”
Petitioner claimed his youth, lack of English, ignorance of U.S. asylum law, and stress from fleeing constituted a legal disability or other extraordinary circumstances excusing the one-year filing bar.
The IJ and the BIA rejected those arguments; the BIA concluded petitioner’s circumstances were not of similar nature or seriousness to regulatory examples, and the Ninth Circuit denied review on the merits of extraordinary-circumstances claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s youth, language barrier, ignorance, and flight-related stress constitute “extraordinary circumstances” (e.g., legal disability) excusing the 1-year asylum filing bar	These factors together amount to a legal disability or incapacity analogous to the regulatory example (unaccompanied minor/mental impairment)	These factors are common to many asylum seekers and are not similar in nature or seriousness to the regulation’s examples; petitioner was a 22‑year‑old adult without shown mental impairment	BIA/IJ decision upheld: undisputed facts do not constitute extraordinary circumstances; aggregate claim fails
Whether ignorance of the filing deadline can excuse late filing	Petitioner was unaware of the 1‑year requirement and thus could not timely file	Ignorance of law is not an excuse; published regulations give presumptive notice	Held: Ignorance of law does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance; petitioner is charged with notice of deadlines
Whether lack of English or stress from fleeing are extraordinary	Limited English and traumatic stress impaired petitioner’s ability to file timely	Lack of English is common among immigrants and does not explain inability to file (translation services available); petitioner showed no unusual stress or diagnosed impairment	Held: Lack of English and ordinary stress are not extraordinary circumstances; petitioner gave no factual showing of unusual impairment

Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) (regulatory examples must be similar in nature or seriousness to qualify as extraordinary)
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (court may review BIA legal determinations about extraordinary circumstances but not disputed factual findings)
Luna v. Holder, 659 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2011) (publication of filing deadline gives presumptive notice; ignorance of regulation generally not excusable)
Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (ignorance of law is generally not an excuse in immigration context)
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (principle that ignorance of law generally no excuse)
Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes legal-reviewable determinations from factual findings)