Singh v. Holder

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BHUPINDER SINGH, 
Petitioner, No. 07-70056
v.
 Agency No.
A078-668-982
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney
General, OPINION
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted
April 13, 2011—San Francisco, California

Filed September 8, 2011

Before: Sidney R. Thomas and Johnnie B. Rawlinson,
Circuit Judges, and Cormac J. Carney, District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Thomas;
Concurrence by Judge Rawlinson

*The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Central California, Santa Ana, sitting by designation.

17055
17058 SINGH v. HOLDER

COUNSEL

Kathleen Taylor, Law Office of Kuldip S. Dhariwal, Fremont,
California, for petitioner Bhupinder Singh.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Carol
Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Song E. Park, Attorney, Office of Immigration Lit-
igation, United States Department of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for respondent United States of America.
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17059
OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge:

In this petition for review, we consider whether the peti-
tioner established changed or extraordinary circumstances that
would excuse his untimely application for asylum. When the
agency addressed this question, it applied incorrect legal stan-
dards. Accordingly, we grant Singh’s petition for review and
remand this matter to the BIA so that it may apply the correct
standards.

I

Bhupinder Singh, a citizen and national of India, entered
the United States on August 26, 1999, as a nonimmigrant visi-
tor with initial authorization to remain until September 24,
1999. He fled India on account of abuse he suffered at the
hands of police in India, who mistakenly believed that he
sympathized with terrorists. The police arrested Singh, with-
out a warrant, three times. Each time, they detained him for
a lengthy period of time, up to four days, and questioned him
about his activities and knowledge of suspected terrorists.
When they detained him, the police severely beat Singh with
sticks and leather straps until he lost consciousness. He
required medical treatment after each of the three arrests.
Singh was released from his first arrest after his parents guar-
anteed the police that they would watch over him. Singh was
released from his third arrest only after his father paid a
60,000 rupee bribe to the police.

After being in the United States for about a month, Singh
applied for an extension of his nonimmigrant visa on Septem-
ber 30, 1999. Singh claimed he wanted to stay in the United
States because it was not safe to return to India. He hoped
that, while he was in the United States, his family could
arrange a “settlement” or “compromise” with the Indian
17060 SINGH v. HOLDER
police that would allow him to return without being harassed
or abused.

The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (now
part of the Department of Homeland Security)1 approved
Singh’s visa-extension request nearly a year later on August
17, 2000, retroactively effective. While his first request was
pending, Singh submitted a second request to extend his visa
to August 24, 2000.

Not long after Singh filed his second request, Indian police
arrested Singh’s wife at her home. According to Singh’s
wife’s written statement,2 the police came to her house late at
night on September 6, 2000, asking questions about him and
accusing him of being a militant. They then took Singh’s wife
into custody and “started slapping and dragging [her] and told
[her] that now your husband will come to the police station.”
Singh’s wife told the police she would file a complaint against
them. The police then beat her with “wooden rods and told
[her] that in the police station they were going to teach [her]
how to file a complaint.” Once at the police station, Singh’s
wife claims the officers locked her in a room, beat her again,
and raped her.

Singh filed his application for asylum on November 20,
2000, two-and-a-half months after his wife’s arrest. At the
1
On March 1, 2003, the functions of the former INS were transferred
from the Department of Justice to three agencies (the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services) in the newly formed Department of
Homeland Security. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2135.
2
Singh’s wife was available to testify before the immigration judge
(“IJ”), but she did not. The record does not indicate why she did not tes-
tify, but the IJ speculated that she did not want her husband to know what
happened during the arrest.
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17061
time, Singh’s second request for a visa extension was still pend-
ing.3

Because Singh’s application for asylum was filed more
than a year after he had first entered the United States, his
application was untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The
Department of Homeland Security referred his application to
the immigration court and placed him in removal proceedings.
The Department charged Singh as removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(1)(B) for remaining in the United States longer than
his visa permitted.

II

Singh conceded removability and sought asylum, withhold-
ing of removal, and protection under the Convention against
Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Singh’s testi-
mony credible, and he granted Singh’s request for withhold-
ing of removal to India and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.

As to Singh’s asylum claim, the IJ concluded that Singh
“has in fact been the victim of past persecution by inferences
of a government who believes that he is an enemy, who
believes he is politically affiliated with a community that
seeks an independence.” And:

[B]ased upon past events it is more likely than not,
assuming the truth of Mr. Singh’s representations,
that if he returns to his homeland he will be subject
to the same form of maltreatment. Acts of persecu-
tion[,] because of political opinion[,] has [sic] been
imputed to him, and there clearly exists a pattern and
practice as represented in his application.
3
Singh’s second request for a visa extension was approved February 15,
2001, nearly six months after he filed the request. The second extension
authorized Singh to remain in the United States until August 24, 2000, was
deemed retroactively effective.
17062 SINGH v. HOLDER
Singh’s application was untimely, but he argued that his
wife’s arrest was a “changed circumstance” that excused the
filing delay under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).4 The IJ disagreed
because Singh did not provide “clear and convincing” evi-
dence that the settlement negotiations amounted to a changed
circumstance (the IJ did not consider whether the arrest of
Singh’s wife was a changed circumstance). As a result, the IJ
rejected Singh’s asylum application as time-barred.

Singh timely appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA, which
adopted the IJ’s decision without opinion, citing In re Bur-
bano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994) (noting that adop-
tion or affirmance of a decision of an IJ, in whole or in part,
is “simply a statement that the Board’s conclusions upon
review of the record coincide with those which the Immigra-
tion Judge articulated in his or her decision.”).

Singh timely petitioned us to review the BIA’s order, but,
while that petition was pending, the Government filed an
unopposed motion to remand the matter to the BIA so that it
could determine whether Singh had established “extraordinary
circumstances” under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) that would
excuse his untimely application.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv) enumerates “[maintenance] of
. . . lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status” as a possible
“extraordinary circumstance.” Singh had maintained his law-
ful nonimmigrant status until August 24, 2000, but the BIA
concluded the extraordinary-circumstances exception did not
apply for two reasons. First, according to the BIA, Singh’s
4
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) reads:
An application for asylum of an alien may be considered, not-
withstanding [the one-year deadline] if the alien demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of
changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s
eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to
the delay in filing an application within the [one-year period].
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17063
lawful nonimmigrant status “was not directly related to the
filing of his application for asylum” because “it was the arrest
of his wife that triggered his application and not because he
was in lawful nonimmigrant status.” Second, the BIA con-
cluded that Singh unreasonably delayed his asylum applica-
tion by filing it seven months after his first visa extension
expired and three months after his second expired.

Singh timely petitioned us to review both of the BIA’s
decisions.

III

We have jurisdiction to review Singh’s petition under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We may review the agency’s application of
the changed or extraordinary circumstances exception to
undisputed facts. Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2011); Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir.
2011); Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2010);
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2008);
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). As evident below, the relevant facts are undisputed,
so we have jurisdiction.

We review the agency’s legal determinations de novo and
its factual findings for substantial evidence. Lopez-Birrueta v.
Holder, 633 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2011). Under the sub-
stantial evidence standard, we will uphold the agency’s deci-
sion “if the decision is supported by reasonable, substantial,
and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.”
Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2010)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We will
reverse the agency when “the evidence in the record compels
a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the [agency’s] deci-
sion is incorrect.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
17064 SINGH v. HOLDER
IV

[1] An applicant must ordinarily file an asylum application
within one year after arriving in the United States. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B). However, the Government may still consider
a late application if the applicant establishes (1) changed cir-
cumstances that materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for
asylum or (2) extraordinary circumstances directly related to
the delay in filing an application. Id. at § 1158(a)(2)(D); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(i), (5). Here, the agency applied incor-
rect legal standards to both of these inquiries. And it errone-
ously concluded that Singh failed to file his asylum
application within a reasonable period of time after his lawful
nonimmigrant status expired. We remand this matter to the
BIA so that it may apply the correct legal standards in the first
instance. Ornelas-Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058
(9th Cir. 2006) (“But where the BIA applies the wrong legal
standard to an applicant’s claim, the appropriate relief from
this court is remand for reconsideration under the correct stan-
dard, not independent review of the evidence.”)

A

[2] “ ‘[C]hanged circumstances’ in [8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D)] shall refer to circumstances materially
affecting the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4)(i); see also Ramadan, 479 F.3d 657-58. Once
an applicant has demonstrated changed circumstances, he
must show that the application was filed “within a reasonable
period given those ‘changed circumstances.’ ” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4)(ii).

Here, the IJ erred in two respects when he concluded that
Singh had not demonstrated changed circumstances.5
5
As to this issue, we review the IJ’s decision because the BIA adopted
it without opinion, citing In re Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872. See Tamang
v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010).
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17065
First, the IJ applied the wrong legal standard. The IJ
remarked: “The law requires the respondent to present evi-
dence that is clear and convincing that there exists a changed
circumstance.” The IJ then focused solely on the purported
settlement negotiations (ignoring the arrest of Singh’s wife)
and concluded the evidence surrounding the settlement was
not “clear and convincing.” Specifically, the IJ commented:

It is unclear what that settlement might be because
the respondent never testified as to the details of
what he [thought his] family hoped to accomplish to
make it safe for him to return to his homeland, to
make it safe for him to live in his country in peace.

[3] Changed circumstances, though, are not evaluated
under a “clear and convincing” standard.6 While an applicant
must show “by clear and convincing evidence that the appli-
cation has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s
arrival in the United States,” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), the
applicant need only provide evidence “[t]o the satisfaction of
. . . the immigration judge . . . that he or she qualifies for an
exception to the 1-year deadline,” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(2)(i)(B). See also Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1180.
Thus, the IJ erred by holding Singh to a “clear and convinc-
ing” standard.

[4] Second, the IJ failed entirely to analyze whether the
arrest of Singh’s wife was a changed circumstance. Instead,
the IJ based his analysis solely on the alleged settlement nego-
tiations. The arrest, though, might very well be a changed cir-
cumstance. Taking Singh’s testimony as true, his wife’s arrest
6
At any rate, the details of the settlement negotiations were sufficiently
clear. Singh testified that his family hoped to arrange a compromise or set-
tlement with the police by paying them money in return for their assurance
that they would not harm or harass Singh if he returned. The efficacy of
this plan is a separate issue, but the details are sufficiently clear to explain
why Singh delayed his application for asylum.
17066 SINGH v. HOLDER
prompted his late application.7 By the Government’s own
admission, the arrest was “further evidence” of the persecu-
tion that Singh suffered in India. Evidence of the arrest might
“[make Singh’s] application much stronger.” Fakhry v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (9th Cir. 2008). For
instance, since Singh would enjoy the presumption of a well-
founded fear of persecution if his application is accepted,8 his
wife’s arrest might make it more difficult for the Government
to rebut that presumption.9 See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1).
Admittedly, since Singh’s wife did not testify as to her
alleged assault and rape during the arrest, the IJ cannot be
faulted for failing to analyze those specific facts.10 The IJ
erred by failing entirely to analyze whether the arrest was a
changed circumstance.

The Government argues that the relevant circumstances—
e.g., the arrest of Singh’s wife—are not changed circum-
stances because they merely provide “further support [to
7
The IJ found Singh credible. As a result, Singh’s testimony and por-
trayal of the facts must be accepted as true. Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d
1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). At a minimum, the IJ was required to accept
as true Singh’s testimony that his wife was arrested during the time she
and his family were attempting to negotiate a settlement or compromise
for his return.
8
The IJ concluded that Singh had suffered past persecution. “If past per-
secution is established, a rebuttable presumption of a well-founded fear
arises, 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1), and the burden shifts to the government to
demonstrate that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances
such that the applicant no longer has a well-founded fear.” Tawadrus v.
Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
9
The Government argues that Singh “provides no explanation as to why
his wife’s arrest is indicative of the fact that he is no longer able to reside
safely in a different region of India.” The Government’s critique is inappo-
site. The Government—not Singh—bears the burden of showing that
Singh can safely relocate to another part of the country. Melkonian v. Ash-
croft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003).
10
Singh’s wife’s statement is in the record, but the record does not
describe the extent to which the IJ relied on it or considered it.
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17067
Singh’s] reasons for fleeing his home country in the first
place.” We squarely rejected this argument in Fakhry, 524
F.3d 1057.

In Fakhry, we held that a petitioner might still qualify for
the changed circumstances exception even if the relevant cir-
cumstances do not create a new basis of persecution but sim-
ply provide further evidence of the type of persecution
already suffered. Id. at 1063-64. We posed the following
example:

Take, for example, the case of an alien who came to
the United States wanting to apply for asylum and
fearing persecution should she return, but felt that
she would not qualify on the objective reasonable-
ness grounds. Not wanting to file an application that
would be denied, she did not file. After her second
year in the United States, changed circumstances in
her country of origin made her application much
stronger, prompting her late application. Why should
she be penalized for declining to clog the immigra-
tion courts with a meritless application? The stat-
ute’s description of “changed circumstances which
materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asy-
lum” reasonably includes this alien’s situation.

Id. In short, changed circumstances may include events “in
[an applicant’s] country of origin [that make] her application
much stronger, prompting her late application.” Id.

[5] Here, the Government concedes that the relevant cir-
cumstances “further support [Singh’s] reasons for fleeing his
home country in the first place.” Singh testified that he waited
more than a year to apply for asylum because he thought con-
ditions would improve so that he could return to India. In par-
ticular, he hoped his family could reach a “compromise” or
“settlement” with the police that would allow him to return
without the threat of being beaten or arrested. After Singh’s
17068 SINGH v. HOLDER
wife was arrested, he decided to apply for asylum because “if
they can arrest her then they will kill me . . . .” Thus, just as
the Government argues, the arrest is “further evidence” and
provides “further support” to Singh’s eligibility for asylum.
This evidence may establish changed circumstances under
Fakhry.

[6] Because the IJ applied the wrong legal standard, we
remand to the BIA so that it can apply the correct standard in
the first instance. Ornelas-Chavez, 458 F.3d at 1058. In
applying the correct standard, the BIA should consider
whether the arrest of Singh’s wife constituted a changed cir-
cumstance.

B

[7] The Government may also consider an untimely asy-
lum application if the application was delayed on account of
extraordinary circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). “The
term ‘extraordinary circumstances’ . . . refer[s] to events or
factors directly related to the failure to meet the 1-year dead-
line.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). The applicant bears the burden
of showing those circumstances (1) “were directly related to
the alien’s failure to file the application within the 1-year peri-
od” and (2) “the delay was reasonable under the circum-
stances.” Id.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(i)-(vi) enumerates six possible cir-
cumstances that might constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Relevant here, one of those is: “The applicant maintained . . .
lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status . . . until a reason-
able period before the filing of the asylum application . . . .”
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(5)(iv); see also Dhital v. Mukasey, 532
F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2008); Husyev, 528 F.3d at
1181.

Here, the BIA concluded the extraordinary-circumstances
exception did not apply to Singh’s application for two rea-
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17069
sons. First, it concluded Singh’s lawful nonimmigrant status
was not “directly related to the filing of his application for
asylum” because “it was the arrest of his wife that triggered
his application and not because he was in lawful nonimmi-
grant status.” Second, it concluded that Singh unreasonably
delayed his application by filing it seven months after the
expiration of his first extension and three months after his sec-
ond extension.

The BIA erred in its analysis. First, the BIA incorrectly
applied the “directly related” requirement to Singh’s circum-
stances. Second, the purported delay fell within the presump-
tively reasonable time period.

1

The BIA concluded Singh’s late application should not be
excused simply because the regulations enumerate mainte-
nance of lawful nonimmigrant status as a possible extraordi-
nary circumstance. Instead, the BIA reasoned, Singh also had
to show that maintenance of nonimmigrant status was “di-
rectly related to the filing of his application for asylum.”
Indeed, applicants must satisfy the “directly related” require-
ment, even when the relevant circumstances are enumerated
in the regulation. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1057
(9th Cir. 2009);11 In re Y—C—, 23 I. & N. Dec. 286, 288 (BIA
11
It is worth noting that in Wakkary, when we examined 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.4(a)(5)(iv)—the subsection discussing maintenance of lawful immi-
grant or nonimmigrant status—we never questioned whether the appli-
cant’s maintenance of that status was directly related to the reason his
untimely application was delayed. Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1056-58. Instead,
we apparently assumed that it was. Id.; see also Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 650
(observing that 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5)(i)-(iv) “lists examples of ‘extraordi-
nary circumstances . . . directly related to the failure to meet the one-year
deadline’ ”). As in Husyev, after we determined the petitioner had main-
tained lawful status, we went on to analyze the reasonableness of the delay
in filing the application without determining whether the delay was
directly related to the petitioner’s lawful status. Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1058-59; Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1182.
17070 SINGH v. HOLDER
2002) (en banc). However, the BIA misapplied this require-
ment to Singh’s circumstances.

The BIA reasoned that Singh’s lawful nonimmigrant status
was not “directly related to the filing of his application for
asylum” because “it was the arrest of [Singh’s] wife that trig-
gered his application and not because he was in lawful nonim-
migrant status.” The BIA misinterpreted the directly-related
requirement.

[8] Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5), an applicant has the
burden of showing that the relevant circumstances “were
directly related to the [applicant’s] failure to file the applica-
tion within the 1-year period . . . .” The BIA held Singh to a
different standard. It required him to show that the relevant
circumstances were “directly related to the filing of his appli-
cation for asylum.” This was error. The applicant must show
that the relevant circumstances were directly related to the
reason the application was delayed, not the reason the applica-
tion was eventually filed.

Aside from conflicting with the plain language of the regu-
lation, the problem with the BIA’s standard is that it is virtu-
ally impossible to meet. Consider, for example, the
circumstances enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(i)-(vi):

(i) serious illness or mental physical disability,

(ii) legal disability,

(iii) ineffective assistance of counsel,

(iv) maintenance of lawful immigrant or nonimmi-
grant status,

(v) an improper asylum application, and
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17071
(vi) the death or serious illness of the applicant’s
legal representative or a member of the applicant’s
immediate family.

Certainly, these circumstances might delay an application.
However, they would likely never “trigger” the filing of an
application because they do not create a basis for asylum eli-
gibility (unlike, for example, evidence of increased or
renewed persecution). The BIA’s standard, then, misses the
mark because these and other extraordinary circumstances are
not reasons for filing an asylum application—they are reasons
for delaying an application. Indeed, if the BIA’s interpretation
in this case were applied, a petitioner could never qualify for
the exception.

[9] The facts here illustrate precisely the BIA’s flaw. The
BIA concluded Singh did not meet the directly-related
requirement “because it was the arrest of his wife that trig-
gered his application and not because he was in lawful nonim-
migrant status.” Indeed, Singh testified that his wife’s arrest
prompted his application. But this is not the relevant inquiry.
The relevant inquiry is why Singh delayed his application.

[10] Because the BIA erred in its analysis, we must
remand the issue so that the BIA can apply the correct stan-
dard to this inquiry.12 Ornelas-Chavez, 458 F.3d at 1058.
12
Singh testified that he delayed his application because he twice
extended his lawful nonimmigrant status, hoping his family might negoti-
ate a “settlement” or “compromise” for his safe return to India. He testi-
fied that, following his wife’s arrest, he no longer believed that he could
safely return, and he filed his asylum application in short order. On
remand, the BIA should consider whether Singh’s nonimmigrant status
was directly related to the reason his asylum application was delayed,
given that the status allowed him to remain temporarily in the United
States while he waited for his family to negotiate a “settlement” or “com-
promise” for his safe return to India.
17072 SINGH v. HOLDER
2

The BIA also concluded that Singh unreasonably delayed
his asylum application because he filed it seven months after
the first extension of his nonimmigrant visa had expired and
three months after his second extension had expired. How-
ever, the BIA’s finding is not supported by substantial evi-
dence.

[11] We have held that a filing delay of less than six
months after an applicant’s nonimmigrant status has expired
is presumptively reasonable. Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1181; Wak-
kary, 558 F.3d at 1057-58. We based this holding on the pre-
amble to the regulation that enumerates maintenance of
nonimmigrant status as a possible extraordinary circumstance:

Generally, the Department expects an asylum-seeker
to apply as soon as possible after expiration of his or
her valid status, and failure to do so will result in
rejection of the asylum application. Clearly, waiting
six months or longer after expiration or termination
of status would not be considered reasonable.
Shorter periods of time would be considered on a
case-by-case basis, with the decision-maker taking
into account the totality of the circumstances.

65 Fed. Reg. 76121-01 at 76123-24 (emphasis added). We
observed that by communicating the six-month period, “[T]he
agency has taken pains to articulate the ‘reasonable period’
standard that applies to petitioners whose temporary nonim-
migrant status has expired.” Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1181. This
standard is a “meaningful standard.” Id. And, “In the absence
of any special considerations, the six months period suggested
in the preamble to the regulations is not an unreasonable pre-
sumptive deadline.” Id. at 1182; accord Wakkary, 558 F.3d at
1057-58; see also Viridiana, 630 F.3d at 951 (concluding a
three-month delay was reasonable in light of the circum-
stances); cf. Dhital, 532 F.3d at 1049-50 (holding that a two-
 SINGH v. HOLDER 17073
year delay in filing an asylum application—without any
explanation for the delay— was unreasonable); Husyev, 528
F.3d 1081-82 (holding that a 364-day delay—again, without
any explanation—was unreasonable).

[12] Singh’s last day of lawful nonimmigrant status was
August 24, 2000. He applied for asylum less than three
months later.13 This time period is presumptively reasonable.
Husyev, 528 F.3d at 1182; Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1057-58.
This is particularly true given that the Government waited
nearly a year to address Singh’s first extension request and
nearly six months to address his second.

[13] We remand this matter to the BIA so that it may apply
the correct standard when determining whether Singh satisfies
the extraordinary-circumstances exception.

V

The agency applied incorrect legal standards when it deter-
mined that Singh had not established changed or extraordi-
nary circumstances, excusing his untimely application.
Moreover, its determination that Singh failed to file his appli-
cation within a reasonable period of time after his lawful non-
immigrant status expired is not supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, we grant Singh’s petition and remand
this matter to the BIA so that it can apply the correct legal
standards in the first instance. Ornelas-Chaez, 458 F.3d at
13
The fact that Singh’s first extension expired seven months prior to
when he filed his application for asylum, while perhaps relevant, is of little
significance. The government granted the extension effective retroac-
tively, curing the technical expiration. Given his second extension, Singh
was a lawful nonimmigrant as of August 24, 2000, and he applied for asy-
lum less than three months later. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1055, 1058
(considering only the most recent of two expired visas when determining
whether the petitioner’s delay in filing his asylum application was a rea-
sonable period of time).
17074 SINGH v. HOLDER
1058. We need not and do not reach any other issues urged
by the parties.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED

RAWLINSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result:

I agree that this case should be remanded for application of
the correct standard to the determination of whether the peti-
tioner has made a sufficient showing of extraordinary circum-
stances to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
application. However, I expressly disavow the majority’s
holding that the seven-month lapse between the expiration of
Singh’s visa extension and the filing of his asylum application
is “of little significance . . . .” Majority Opinion, p. 17073
n.13. Indeed, the governing regulation is to the contrary. See
65 Fed. Reg. 76121-01 at 76124 (“Clearly, waiting six months
or longer after expiration . . . of status would not be consid-
ered reasonable . . .) (emphasis added). The majority’s reli-
ance on Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1055, 1058 (9th
Cir. 2009), see Majority Opinion, p. 17073 n.13, is unavail-
ing. In that case, we expressly noted that “Wakkary submitted
his asylum application . . . six months and some days after his
status expired . . .” Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1057 (emphasis
added). By analogy, Singh submitted his application seven
months after his status expired. A determination of unreason-
ableness in that circumstance is consistent with our precedent.
See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008)
(establishing six months as a presumptive deadline).

In sum, I agree that this case should be remanded to the
agency for application of the correct standard to the determi-
nation of whether extraordinary circumstances exist. For that
reason only, I concur in the result.