Opinion ID: 793019
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exceptions to the One-Year Deadline

Text: 26 Porras contends that even if he did miss the one-year deadline to apply for asylum, he is eligible for a changed circumstances exception to the deadline because his January 2000 arrest in Costa Rica constituted persecution and increased his fear of future persecution, thus materially affect[ing his] eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); see also 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(4). Although he does not press the argument on appeal, Porras might also have asserted that he was eligible for an extraordinary circumstances exception because he maintained . . . lawful . . . nonimmigrant status. . . until a reasonable period before the filing of [his] asylum application. Id. § 208.4(a)(5)(iv). 27 We have no authority to review the IJ's decision as to changed or extraordinary circumstances unless it implicates constitutional claims or questions of law over which the REAL ID Act grants this Court jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (no court has jurisdiction to review the timeliness requirements of § 1158(a)(2)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (providing judicial review for constitutional claims or questions of law). In Xiao Ji Chen, supra, we addressed the same issue and concluded that we are without jurisdiction to review petitioner's claims to the extent that she asserts that the IJ abused his discretion when making factual determinations that she had failed to demonstrate either `changed' or `extraordinary' circumstances. 434 F.3d at 154. Here, the IJ looked to the facts and the circumstances as presented in this case and concluded that Porras did not qualify for an exception. Oral Decision at 7. We therefore conclude that we cannot disturb the IJ's conclusion that Porras was not entitled to file past the one-year deadline because of changed or extraordinary circumstances. Cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that the existence of `changed circumstances' that materially affect eligibility for asylum is a predominately factual determination, which will invariably turn on the facts of a given case).