Case Name: Ana Esther MORALES-DE LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-26
Citations: 540 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: No. 11-72071
Parties: Ana Esther MORALES-DE LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 554–554

Head Matter:
Ana Esther MORALES-DE LOZANO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72071.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Sept. 26, 2013 .
Ramin Ghashghaei, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, 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: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Ana Esther Morales-De Lozano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2011), and we deny the petition for review.
Morales-De Lozano contends that extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of her asylum application. Even if she established extraordinary circumstances, the record does not compel the conclusion that she filed her asylum application within a reasonable period after the Department of Homeland Security filed the Notice to Appear with the immigration court. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir.2008). Accordingly, Morales-De Lozano's asylum claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.