Case Name: QI LI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-22
Citations: 710 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 13-73142
Parties: QI LI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 304–305

Head Matter:
QI LI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-73142
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 22, 2018
Qi Li, Pro Se
Carmel Aileen Morgan, 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: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Qi Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's application of the extraordinary circumstances exception to undisputed facts. Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Li established extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review.
We reject, as unsupported by the record, Li's claim that the IJ was biased. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Li's other contentions regarding the sufficiency of his corroborative evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.