Al Ramahi v. Holder

When seeking asylum, a delay of more than fifteen months after changed or extraordinary circumstances is not a “reasonable period” where the delay was due to being unable to file an application after being issued a Notice to Appear and the inability to retain counsel.

Osama Al Ramahi and his wife Nisreen Al Sharif failed to file their applications for asylum either within the statutory one-year deadline or within “a reasonable period after their claimed extraordinary circumstances.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decided to not grant their untimely applications for asylum because the BIA determined that Al Ramahi and Al Sharif’s extraordinary circumstances were not sufficient. Al Ramahi and Al Sharif appealed the BIA decision. The Ninth Circuit, reviewing the BIA’s determination that Al Ramahi and Al Sharif failed to show that their delay in filing for asylum was supported by substantial evidence, agreed with the BIA and denied Al Ramahi and Al Sharif’s petition for review. After reviewing all the factual circumstances of Al Ramahi and Al Sharif’s case that gave rise to their delay in filing for asylum, the panel decided that their delay in filing was not reasonable, despite the various barriers they encountered, including ineffective counsel, inability to retain another attorney, and being unable to file an application after being issued a Notice to Appear. Ultimately, the panel upheld the BIA’s decision because it was supported by substantial evidence. Even assuming Al Ramahi and Al Sharif “could demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, they did not file their applications within a ‘reasonable period given those circumstances.’” PETITION DENIED.