Case ID: f-appx_127/html/0356-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Guojun HAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-74815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Daniel P. Hanlon, Esq., Hanlon & Greene, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Patricia A. Smith, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guojun Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which granted Han’s claim for withholding of removal and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum as untimely. We dismiss the petition for review.

To the extent that Han raises the issue, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Han did not file his application within one year of entering the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir.2001), or that changed circumstances excused the late filing, see Molinar-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002).

Han contends that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to consider whether “the effect of the current circumstances in China with respect to coercive family planning” qualified as an exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum. We lack jurisdiction to consider Han’s claim because he did not exhaust this issue. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-678 (9th Cir.2004).

This Court’s dismissal of Han’s petition for review does not disturb the BIA’s grant of withholding of removal to Han.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.