Case Name: Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-02
Citations: 651 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 13-72402
Parties: Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: . Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Gurdeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-72402
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2016
June 2, 2016
Surjit Singh, Law Office of Surgit Singh, APC, Anaheim, CA, for Petitioner.
Janette L. Allen, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
. Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gurdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2010). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's conclusion that Singh did not establish extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay in filing his asylum application because the underlying facts are disputed. See Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.2013) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petitioner's challenge to the agency's extraordinary circumstances determination because it rested on an underlying factual dispute about whether petitioner's filing delay was caused by mental disability or a lack of money and language ability). We reject any contention that the agency ignored facts, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006), or applied the wrong legal standard to the extraordinary circumstances claim, see Gasparyan, 707 F.3d at 1134-35.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.