Opinion ID: 3038505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Long’s Asylum Application

Text: The second issue Along presents for our consideration is his contention that the one-year asylum application requirement violates his substantive due process rights and his right to equal protection of the laws. We are without jurisdiction to entertain this 4 Even when a motion to reopen is timely filed, the BIA “has discretion to deny [that] motion . . . even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). 5 Had Along challenged the BIA’s ultimate finding that he did “not establish[] that he is entitled to an exception to the filing requirements for reopening” (A.R. 2), he would have been no more successful. As recognized above, the “new” evidence Along attached to his motion consisted of his own affidavit and three letters from family and friends in Indonesia. The affidavit recounted instances of violence that Along had already put before the IJ; the letters from his relatives recounted undated instances of violence by Muslims against Christians in the family’s home city of Pontianak; and the letter from his friend recounted instances of violence in Jakarta (though no one from Along’s family resided in Jakarta). Based on this evidence, we cannot conclude that the BIA’s refusal to grant Along’s motion to reopen was an abuse of discretion. 6 aspect of his appeal, however, as the one-year asylum application requirement was not a subject of the BIA’s January 12, 2007 decision—the only decision properly before this Court. (See Pet. for Review (“Fnu, Along hereby petitions the Court for review of the Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals) denying his appeal dated and entered on January 12, 2007.”).) Because the time limit for seeking judicial review of the BIA’s January 2006 order has long passed,6 Along has waived his opportunity to challenge the one-year asylum application requirement on appeal.