Case ID: f-appx_107/html/0145-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mangal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74525.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
    Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Margaret Perry, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mangal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination, Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003), and we review for substantial evidence the IJ’s determination of an applicant’s eligibility for asylum and withholding, including any adverse credibility determination, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss the petition for review in part, and deny it in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Singh failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that would excuse the untimely filing of his application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (excusing a late filing in “extraordinary circumstances”); 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5) (identifying events that qualify as “extraordinary circumstances”).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Singh failed to satisfy the “clear probability” standard of proof required for withholding of removal. See Hakeem, 273 F.3d at 816-17.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       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.