Opinion ID: 42407
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over BIA’s Finding of Facts

Text: This court lacks jurisdiction to review alien asylum claims, found by the BIA to be time barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (“No court shall have jurisdiction to review any 2 determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2) [providing for exceptions, including the time bar, to an alien’s right to apply for asylum].”). There is a narrow exception where the reasoning of the BIA is unclear. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2005) (remanding to the BIA because its affirmance without opinion left the court with “no way of knowing whether the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision on a non-reviewable basis, i.e., untimeliness). In the instant case, however, the BIA stated in its order that “[Raza’s] asylum application is timebarred.” In addition, the BIA further stated that Raza was not entitled to any exceptions as “he has not shown changed circumstances which have materially affected his eligibility for asylum, or that extraordinary circumstances prevented the filing of the application within the 1 year time limit.” Thus, unlike Zhu, the BIA made it clear that the basis for its affirmance of the IJ’s judgment was untimeliness, and therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction. Raza argues that this court has jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act.1 Although the REAL ID Act retroactively restored this 1 Real ID Act Section 106(a)(1)(iii) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (respecting judicial review of final orders of removal) by adding a new provision, § 1252 (a)(2)(D), as follows: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or C [of § 1252(a)(2)], or in any other provision on [Immigration and Nationality Act] (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate 3 court’s jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law regarding final orders of removal in many circumstances where such review otherwise would be barred, the determination whether Raza demonstrated that he filed his claim within one year of arrival, or that exceptional circumstances precluded such a finding, does not involve such a constitutional claim or legal question. The affirmance by the BIA based on untimeliness is a factual question and therefore not subject to judicial review under the REAL ID Act. We therefore DISMISS Raza’s asylum petition for lack of jurisdiction.