Opinion ID: 3063437
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jurisdiction over Denial of Asylum

Text: The first issue is whether we have jurisdiction to review the denial of Diego 1 Although Diego Pedro makes a passing reference in his brief to the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT, he makes no argument as to the merits of that decision (i.e., that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured in Guatemala at the hands of the government). He has therefore abandoned his CAT claims. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (applying rule that “[w]hen an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned”). 4 Pedro’s asylum claim. The government contends that we lack jurisdiction because his asylum application was deemed untimely. Diego Pedro submits that we have jurisdiction because he has raised constitutional claims and questions of law. We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. See Ruiz, 479 F.3d at 765. An alien has one year after entering the United States in which to apply for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). An application filed after one year may be considered if the alien establishes changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See id. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), we lack jurisdiction to review a determination that an alien’s application was time-barred and that changed or extraordinary circumstances did not justify the delay. See id. § 1158(a)(3); Ruiz, 479 F.3d at 765. Furthermore, although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional and legal questions, “[t]he timeliness of an asylum application is not a constitutional claim or question of law.” Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Here, the IJ and BIA concluded that Diego Pedro’s asylum application was untimely because he filed it four years after he entered the United States, and he did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his delay. We do not have jurisdiction to review a denial of asylum on those grounds. See 8 5 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ruiz, 479 F.3d at 765. Accordingly, we dismiss Diego Pedro’s petition as to his asylum claim for lack of jurisdiction.