Case Name: Gevorg Mikaelyan; Achkhen MIKAELYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-30
Citations: 398 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 07-73459
Parties: Gevorg Mikaelyan; Achkhen MIKAELYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 219–219

Head Matter:
Gevorg Mikaelyan; Achkhen MIKAELYAN, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73459.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
Gevorg Mikaelyan, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Achkhen Mikaelian, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Andrew C. MacLachlan, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, OIL, Justin Robert Markel, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Gevorg Mikaelyan, a native of Romania and citizen of Armenia, and Achkhen Mikaelyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Walckary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that petitioners failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing their untimely filed asylum application because that finding was based on disputed facts. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.