Opinion ID: 788423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jurisdictional Bar

Text: 35 On appeal, Lanza challenges both the IJ's rejection of her asylum claim as untimely and his rejection of her asylum application on the merits. Where, as here, the BIA streamlines and affirms the result of the IJ's decision without opinion, we review the IJ's decision. See Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 851. We turn first to Lanza's challenge to the IJ's procedural determination — that Lanza's petition was untimely filed — and decline to consider that challenge for lack of jurisdiction. This Court generally has jurisdiction to review final orders denying asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (2000). Our jurisdiction to review a rejection of an asylum application as untimely, however, is precluded by statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination by the Attorney General under paragraph [a](2). Paragraph (a)(2) includes the provisions concerning whether the alien filed his or her application within a year of entry and whether extraordinary circumstances exist excusing an alien's delay in filing an application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). 36 Although Lanza argues that § 1158(a)(3)'s jurisdictional bar violates due process, this Court rejected such a challenge in Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815-16 (9th Cir.2001). [A] panel may not consider the correctness of an earlier panel's decisions unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines [that] decision[ ]. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 896 (9th Cir.2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (second and third alterations in original). There is no basis for reconsideration of Hakeem here.