Case Name: ZHIYAN JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-13
Citations: 622 F. App'x 667
Docket Number: No. 12-72654
Parties: ZHIYAN JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDERand FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CHHABRIA, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 667–667

Head Matter:
ZHIYAN JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72654.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.
Filed Nov. 13, 2015.
Maria Christina Flores, Law Office of Maria Flores, San Gabriel, CA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDERand FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Vince G, Chhabria, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Zhiyan Jin is a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. Jin petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her petition for asylum.
An application for asylum must be filed within one year of the alien's arrival in the United States. The alien has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the application was timely filed. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Immigration Judge ("IJ") found that Jin had not met this burden and the BIA agreed.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ's or BIA's finding that an asylum application is untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). While we retain jurisdiction to review the agency's timeliness-related rulings where the alien raises a question of law or constitutional claim, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc), Jin raises neither.
The petition for review is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.