Opinion ID: 202159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Hayek's Asylum Application

Text: 23 The government correctly argues that we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision that Hayek's application for asylum was untimely and that the untimeliness was not excused. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under [8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2), describing the one-year deadline for asylum applications and exceptions.]). 24 This conclusion is unchanged by section 106(a) of the REAL ID Act, which provides that [n]othing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review. REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 106(a)(1)(A)(iii), 119 Stat. 231 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). In Mehilli v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 86, (1st Cir.2005), we explained that [u]nder the terms of this limited jurisdictional grant, discretionary or factual determinations continue to fall outside the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and BIA findings as to timeliness and changed circumstances are usually factual determinations. Id. at 93 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider this matter.