15-1610 

Gurung v. Boente 

BIA 

Sichel, IJ 

A087 651 237 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED 

ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE 

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT 

FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE 

(WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY 

OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

8th day of February, two thousand seventeen. 

PRESENT: 

REENA RAGGI,

GERARD E. LYNCH, 

RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

JIJEN SINGH GURUNG, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 15-1610 

 NAC 

DANA J. BOENTE, ACTING UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.* 

_____________________________________ 

FOR PETITIONER: Jijen Singh Gurung, pro se, Forest 

Hills, N.Y.

 

FOR RESPONDENT: Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General; Carl H. 

McIntyre Assistant Director; Justin 

R. Markel, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Office of Immigration 

 

* The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to amend the caption 

to conform to the above. 
2 

Litigation, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, 

D.C. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is 

DISMISSED. 

 Petitioner Jijen Singh Gurung, a native and citizen of 

Nepal, seeks review of an April 28, 2015, decision of the BIA, 

affirming a November 19, 2013, decision of an Immigration Judge 

(“IJ”) denying Gurung’s application for asylum as time barred. 

In re Jijen Singh Gurung, No. A087 651 237 (B.I.A. Apr. 28, 

2015), aff’g No. A087 651 237 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Nov. 19, 

2013). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying 

facts and procedural history in this case. 

 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed both 

the IJ’s and BIA’s opinions. Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 

237 (2d Cir. 2008). An asylum application must be filed within 

one year of an applicant’s arrival in the United States, absent 

“changed circumstances which materially affect the applicant’s 

eligibility for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). Our 

jurisdiction to review the agency’s pretermission of asylum on 

timeliness grounds is limited to “constitutional claims or 

questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D). To 
3 

determine whether jurisdiction exists in a particular case, we 

“study the arguments asserted” and ask, “regardless of the 

rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels 

over the correctness of the factual findings or justification 

for the discretionary choices,” in which case we would lack 

jurisdiction. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 

315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). 

 Gurung arrived in the United States in 2005 and applied for 

asylum four years later in 2009. He asserts that the agency 

violated due process when it failed to consider that the 

“political instability and uncertainty” in Nepal between 2005 

and 2009, the Maoists’ victory in the April 2008 national 

elections and their “complete takeover of the Nepalese 

government by 2009,” and Gurung’s loss of hope that the 

political situation in Nepal would improve were changed 

circumstances excusing the untimely filing. Pet’r’s Br. at 9. 

This assertion is belied by the record. The IJ addressed 

Gurung’s testimony concerning events in 2008 and 2009 and his 

hopes that the situation in Nepal would improve, but concluded 

that Gurung failed to establish changed circumstances given, 

inter alia, the persecution that he suffered prior to departing 

Nepal in 2005. Accordingly, the IJ did not ignore any evidence 

or testimony. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 340 n.17 (holding 
4 

that the Court presumes that the agency “has taken into account 

all of the evidence before [it], unless the record compellingly 

suggests otherwise”). Gurung’s remaining challenges to the 

changed circumstances ruling are mere factual challenges that 

we do not have jurisdiction to review. 

 For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the petition for 

review. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk