NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIKUN HOU; SHANSHAN XU, No. 17-71689 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A089-674-342 A200-841-386 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 7, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,*** District Judge. Petitioners Jikun Hou and Shanshan Xu, Chinese nationals and citizens, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. affirming a denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) arising out of Xu’s contention that she was forced to obtain an abortion by Chinese authorities in 2004. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of Petitioners’ asylum application as untimely, that substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding, and that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners are not otherwise entitled to relief on their CAT and withholding of removal claims.1 Petitioners last arrived in the United States in March 2008. The operative application was filed in July 2011. Because Petitioners filed their asylum petition more than one year following their arrival in the United States, the petition was untimely absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. See Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D). Petitioners’ challenge to the agency’s determination that extraordinary circumstances did not excuse their failure to file within one year hinges on a factual dispute about the point at which Petitioners were able to file for asylum. In light of this fact dispute, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s 1 “Where, as here, the Board incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as “the agency.” 2 extraordinary circumstances determination. See Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination as to Xu. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, in applying the substantial evidence standard, “[w]e reverse the BIA’s decision only if the petitioner’s evidence was ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that he was not credible’” (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003))). Record evidence permitted the IJ ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals