Case Name: PENG LI, Petitioner, v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-09
Citations: 193 F. App'x 31
Docket Number: No. 04-5374-ag
Parties: PENG LI, Petitioner, v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents.
Judges: PRESENT: Hon. WILFRED FEINBERG, Hon. JON 0. NEWMAN and Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 31–32

Head Matter:
PENG LI, Petitioner, v. US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Board of Immigration Appeals, Respondents.
No. 04-5374-ag.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 9, 2006.
Lawrence S. Kerben, Hew Gardens, NY, for Petitioner.
Bud Cummins, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Fletcher Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Little Rock, AR, for Respondent.
PRESENT: Hon. WILFRED FEINBERG, Hon. JON 0. NEWMAN and Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Li Peng, through counsel, petitions for review of the BIA's September 2004 decision affirming Immigration Judge ("IJ") Sandy K. Horn's denial of her application for asylum. In re Li Peng, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (BIA Sept. 9, 2004); No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City June 23, 2003). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the United States Code provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review the agency's finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), or its finding of neither changed nor extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimeliness under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Notwithstanding that provision, however, this Court retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and "questions of law." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Here, Li argues that her mental illness should have qualified as an extraordinary circumstance that excused her untimely-filed asylum application. This is not a "question of law" but rather a purely factual question that we do not have jurisdiction to review.
The petition for review is therefore DISMISSED.