Opinion ID: 2971496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Timeliness of Gjyzi’s Asylum Application

Text: Our concern here is as follows. The IJ deemed Gjyzi’s asylum application untimely on the sole ground that he made conflicting representations concerning his date of entry into the United States and was, therefore, not credible. As we noted above, Gjyzi’s asylum application listed November 5, 2000 as his date of entry; but in his testimony before the IJ, he claimed to have entered the United States on December 5, 2000. On appeal, the BIA broadly repudiated the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. Yet, without any additional explanation, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Gjyzi failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application within one year of his entering the United States. No. 03-3054 Gjyzi v. Ashcroft, et al. Page 4 By broadly repudiating the IJ’s adverse credibility findings, the BIA vitiated the argument that Gjyzi failed to establish his date of entry because he was not credible due to the discrepancy between the November 5 and December 5, 2000 entry dates. Alternatively, by finding him credible, the BIA has implicitly credited one or the other of Gjyzi’s representations concerning his date of entry. In either case, because each date still places Gjyzi safely within the one-year filing period provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) – since his application for asylum and withholding of removal was filed on October 29, 2001 – the basis for the BIA’s decision is difficult to comprehend. In other words, in a case where the IJ’s adverse credibility findings are the only basis for an untimeliness decision, the BIA fails to explain how it can reject the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations, but still uphold the IJ’s disposition which flowed exclusively from those adverse credibility determinations. The Government is correct that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of an asylum application based on the factual determination that the application was untimely filed. The INA states, in relevant part that: “No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General [concerning the timeliness of an alien’s application for asylum].” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). In the Government’s view, Gjyzi seeks review of the timeliness determination, and therefore, we have nothing to review. But Gjyzi does not challenge the BIA’s timeliness determination per se; rather, he argues that the BIA made a legal error in the course of making that determination. This is an important distinction, because, as a matter of due process, assigning complete discretion to an agency to apply the law does not allow that decisionmaker to ignore the law. See McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 111 S. Ct. 888, 112 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1991) (provision barring appellate judicial review of a determination concerning an immigration application did not foreclose “general collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies used by the agency in processing applications.”) In other words, the specter of a due process violation is raised – and easily falls within our jurisdiction – where the agency ignores its own law. In this case, the denial of asylum to Gjyzi based on the timeliness of his asylum application may be correct or incorrect, but at present, it lacks an actual or divinable reasoned basis, which raises due process concerns and compels us to vacate the order denying asylum and to return the case to the immigration authorities for further explanation. See Mickeviciute v. I.N.S., 327 F.3d 1159, 1164 n.4 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Because our jurisdiction in part depends on the basis for the BIA’s decision, we remind the BIA that to the extent it fails to adequately articulate the grounds on which it denies relief, our jurisdiction may be difficult to ascertain.”).