Opinion ID: 1361471
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Malonga's Application for Asylum

Text: Malonga first challenges the IJ's refusal to excuse his untimely application for asylum. An applicant for asylum must demonstrate by clear-and-convincing evidence that the applicant filed the application within one year of the applicant's arrival or April 1, 1997, whichever is later. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The one-year period may be excused only if the applicant can demonstrate changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Here, Malonga does not dispute the fact that his application was untimely filed, and the IJ determined that Malonga's excuse, his depression, was insufficient to qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. The INS argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision because of 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), which provides that [n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2). Malonga attempts to avail himself of appellate review by arguing (1) that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining whether extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely application and (2) that recent amendments to federal law confer this court jurisdiction over this issue. We conclude that we are precluded from reviewing the IJ's refusal to excuse Malonga's untimely application. This circuit has routinely held that whether an untimely application should be excused involves the discretionary judgment of the Attorney General and, as such, is unreviewable. See, e.g., Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 410-11 (8th Cir.2007); Jallow v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 569, 571 (8th Cir.2007); Ignatova v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1209, 1214 (8th Cir.2005). Furthermore this court has already rejected Malonga's argument that the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310 (May 11, 2005), granted this court the ability to review such claims. [1] See Mouawad, 485 F.3d at 411. Because the decision to excuse an untimely filed asylum application is discretionary and because this court has already determined that the REAL ID Act did not confer jurisdiction to this court to review the propriety of an IJ's refusal to excuse an untimely petition, we do not have jurisdiction to review Malonga's asylum claim.