Case Name: YONGMO HUANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 06-73124
Parties: YONGMO HUANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
YONGMO HUANG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2007.
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Yongmo Huang, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aliza B. Alyeshmerni, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Yongmo Huang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' adoption and affirmance of an immigration judge's decision granting his application for withholding of removal and denying his applications for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He contends that the Board and the immigration judge erred in finding that his asylum application was untimely because his testimony as to this issue was not credible and he failed to establish that he filed the application within one year of his arrival in the United States, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Section 1158(a)(3) deprives us of jurisdiction to review these factual determinations. Cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2007) (holding that REAL ID Act restored court of appeals' jurisdiction to review mixed question of fact and law such as determination that untimely filing of asylum application not excused by changed circumstances).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.