Opinion ID: 164326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Haoud Decision

Text: 33 Sviridov has belatedly raised an argument concerning his asylum claim based upon the recent First Circuit decision in Haoud. Sviridov's application for asylum was untimely. The IJ rejected his claim for asylum because of that untimeliness and because Sviridov failed to show extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely application, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). We and numerous other circuits have held that, although we generally have jurisdiction to review the denial of an asylum request, we lack jurisdiction to review a determination on the timeliness of an asylum application: 34 Section 1158(a)(3) expressly provides that the courts do not have jurisdiction to review any determination on whether the alien filed his application within a year of entry or whether changed circumstances exist which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an application. 35 Tsevegmid, 336 F.3d at 1235 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)). 36 Sivirdov argues, citing Haoud, that because the BIA member summarily affirmed the IJ's decision without an opinion or explanation of its reasons, we cannot tell whether the BIA affirmed on an unreviewable basis (untimeliness) or on a reviewable basis (the merits of his asylum application). If in fact the BIA affirmed on a reviewable basis, Sviridov would be deprived of that review if we conclude that the existence of an additional, unreviewable basis deprives us of jurisdiction. 37 In Haoud, the applicant filed an untimely petition for asylum. The IJ denied his application, finding that the applicant failed to establish changed circumstances to excuse that untimeliness. Haoud, 350 F.3d at 203. The IJ also, however, held in the alternative that Haoud's application failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on a reasonable possibility that he would suffer harm in Algeria. Id. Shortly after the IJ rendered his decision denying Haoud's asylum application, the BIA decided another case, In re Amine Touarsi, Aph-nbc-slo (BIA Dec. 28, 2000), involving a man in essentially the identical situation as Haoud. Although the IJ denied Touarsi's asylum application, the Board on appeal reversed upon concluding that Touarsi had `a well-founded fear of persecution in Algeria based on imputed political opinion.' Haoud, 350 F.3d at 204. 38 The First Circuit first observed that the affirmance without opinion of the IJ decision in that situation gives us no guidance as to whether the Board affirmed the IJ's decision on a non-reviewable basis, i.e. untimeliness, or a reviewable basis, i.e. the merits of Haoud's asylum claim. Id. at 206. After noting that when the BIA affirms without opinion or explanation, `a Court of Appeals must then review the decision of the IJ,' id. at 207 (quoting Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365, 373 (1st Cir.2003)), the court went on to state that that approach is inapposite here because the IJ never had the opportunity to consider Touarsi, which was rendered following the IJ's decision. Id. Thus, the court concluded that [a]s Touarsi bears strongly on Haoud's asylum application, an AWO affirming an IJ's decision that never considered Touarsi fails to meet th[e] mandate [that the Board give a reasoned administrative decision]. Id. at 208. 39 Our case is distinguishable from Haoud. First, the IJ in this case did not rule in the alternative on the merits of Sviridov's asylum claim. Rather, the IJ clearly denied the asylum application because it was untimely and Sviridov failed to show extraordinary circumstances excusing that untimeliness. The IJ plainly did not reach the merits of the asylum application. Second, as the First Circuit acknowledged, when the Board affirms without an opinion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e)(4), as it did here, the IJ's decision becomes the final agency decision and that is what we review. See Yuk, 355 F.3d at 1230-1232. There is no reason in this case, as there may have been in Haoud, that such review is inapposite. 40 Accordingly, looking directly at the IJ's decision, the IJ clearly denied Sviridov's asylum application on the exclusive ground of untimeliness. We have no jurisdiction to review that decision. We do not hold that there could never be a situation where a summary affirmance might leave us in doubt as to whether the agency's decision was on a reviewable or an unreviewable basis. That is not the situation, however, on the particular facts of this case.