Opinion ID: 2981019
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eligibility to for Asylum4

Text: As set out in Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, we are barred from reviewing asylum applications denied for untimeliness when the petition seeks review of discretionary or factual questions. 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir. 2006). We have jurisdiction to review appeals for denials of untimely asylum applications only when the appeal involves “constitutional claims or matters of statutory construction.” Id. In this case, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s finding that Mushayahama had 4 Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mushayahama submitted a supplemental letter and citation on February 23, 2012. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). In this letter, Mushayahama, citing Matter of L-S-, 29 I. & N. Dec. 705 (BIA 2012), for the first time asserts that she is entitled to “humanitarian asylum” under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A) or (B), if the court finds that she is ineligible for all other requested forms of relief. Because we find that her asylum claim is time barred and because Mushayahama raises this argument for the first time in supplemental briefing after oral argument on her appeal, we cannot consider this argument. Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631, 641 (6th Cir. 2005). 12 sufficiently shown “extraordinary circumstances,” which could excuse her failure to file an application for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States, pursuant to INA § 208(a)(2)(B), (D), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). The BIA also agreed with the IJ, however, that Mushayahama did not sufficiently show that “the alien filed the application within a reasonable period given those circumstances.” (A.R. 3, 63; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)). Mushayahama admits that the issue of the reasonableness of the delay as determined by the BIA and IJ “is beyond the review of this Court,” but “she maintains her eligibility for asylum for the record and includes the information on asylum [in her brief] because it is so closely linked to the related request for withholding of removal, which the Court can review.” (Pet’r Br. 22, n.2). Respondent correctly argues that Mushayahama makes no constitutional or statutory construction claim related to her application for asylum in her petition for review and that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to review the BIA’s dismissal of Mushayahama’s application for asylum for failure to file it within a reasonable time given the “extraordinary circumstances” she faced. See Almuhtaseb, 453 F.3d at 748. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider Mushayahama’s claim insofar as it relates to asylum, and Mushayahama’s petition for review is denied with respect to her asylum claim.