
    Francisco Eliezer Palafox PADILLA, AKA Hector Lopez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73238
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 12, 2018 Pasadena, California
    Filed February 28, 2018
    John Martin Pope, Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    Allison Frayer, Jesse David Lorenz, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and QUIST, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Francisco Eliezer Palafox Padilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part, grant it in part, and remand.

1. Asylum Claim

Whether or not Palafox addressed every reason for the Board’s finding that his asylum application was untimely, Palafox’s opening brief clearly challenged that finding and thus preserved the issue for appeal. See Brown v. Rawson-Neal Psych. Hosp., 840 F.3d 1146, 1149 (9th Cir. 2016) (“We ... reasonably require parties to preserve valid issues in order to conserve judicial resources and to assist our review.”).

The BIA properly concluded that Pala-fox’s . application for asylum was time-barred. Although a delay of six months after the expiration of lawful nonimmi-grant status is “presumptively reasonable,” Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2011), a nine- to eleven-year delay is not. Ignorance of asylum law is not a special consideration excusing Palafox’s delay in filing. See Antonio-Martinez v. INS, 317 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (“As a general rule, ignorance of the law is no excuse.”). Therefore, Palafox’s petition for review challenging the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum is denied.

2. Withholding op Removal and Cat Protection Claims

With respect to Palafox’s petition for review of his claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, we grant and remand to the BIA to consider Palafox’s eligibility in light of our intervening decisions in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), and Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Neither the BIA nor the parties had the benefit of these decisions.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

PETITION DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     