Opinion ID: 220159
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretermission of Wang’s Asylum Application

Text: The petitioners argue that the agency erred in finding that Wang did not demonstrate that she filed her asylum application within one year of her entry into the United States. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that an asylum application was untimely under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), or its finding of neither changed nor extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimeliness under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), a question of law is not implicated “when the petition for review essentially disputes the correctness of the IJ’s fact-finding or the wisdom of his exercise of discretion,” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 328-29 (2d Cir. 2006). 3 Here, petitioners argue that the IJ erred as a matter of law in holding that Wang was not credible because the IJ based this conclusion on its observation that “on a number of occasions the respondent dealt with the question by stating a tentative answer and then asking the person questioning her whether that was right.” The record reveals that at one point during the questioning, Wang was asked, “Can you tell me how you received this document here into the United States?” In response to that question, Wang answered: “It was sent over, sent to the United States, right?” This appears to be the only time Wang gave any testimony that could have been construed as a question seeking confirmation of the correctness of her response. Although an “unambiguous mischaracterization of the record” may raise a question of law, Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 508 F.3d 716, 722 (2d Cir. 2007), the one isolated overstatement in this case does not rise to that level. The record reveals that the IJ correctly described Wang’s responses as largely tentative. The record also indicates that Wang changed her answers, or, as the IJ noted, was “led into remembering” a number of important details that she otherwise could not recall—including the year in which her 4 second son was born. Thus, the IJ’s description of the record was not an unambiguous mischaracterization of its content overall. Id. Further, unlike the mischaracterization at issue in Gui Yin Liu v. INS, 475 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2007), which involved Liu’s record with the Chinese police, the IJ’s overstatement in this case does not involve a “central element” of the record. See id. at 138. Rather, it was one of many considerations that factored into the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the finding that the asylum application was untimely. The petitioners’ alternative argument, that the IJ erred by requiring corroboration without first identifying the relevant documents and showing that they were reasonably available to the petitioner, is misplaced. When an applicant’s testimony has been called into question, the agency may reasonably expect the applicant to provide corroborative materials to rehabilitate the testimony. See Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). Contrary to petitioners’ claims, an IJ need not first identify the particular pieces of evidence before relying on a lack of corroboration to support an adverse credibility 5 finding. See Xiao Ji Chen, 471 F.3d at 341. Thus the petitioners have not demonstrated any error of law in the pretermission of Wang’s asylum application as untimely.