17-2622 Ou v. Barr UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 20th day of April, two thousand twenty. Present: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ ZHIHUA OU, Petitioner, v. 17-2622 WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _____________________________________ For Petitioner: YEVGENY SAMOKHLEB, Law Offices of Yevgeny Samokhleb, P.C., New York, NY For Respondent: KATHERINE A. SMITH, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 1 the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner Zhihua Ou, a native and citizen of China, seeks review of an August 8, 2017 decision of the BIA affirming an October 21, 2016 decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Ou’s request for asylum as time-barred and denying his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the merits. In re Zhihua Ou, No. A 087-646-893 (B.I.A. Aug. 8, 2017), aff’g No. A 087-646-893 (Immig. Ct. New York Oct. 21, 2016). The government moves to dismiss in part for lack of jurisdiction and summarily deny in part Ou’s petition for review. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Under the circumstances of this case, we consider both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). I. Asylum An alien is ineligible for asylum “unless the alien demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Our jurisdiction to review the agency’s findings regarding the timeliness of an asylum application is limited to “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). For jurisdiction to attach, such claims must be colorable. Quito v. Barr, 948 F.3d 83, 93–94 (2d Cir. 2020). Ou fails to raise a colorable constitutional question or question of law. Contrary to Ou’s argument, the IJ did not commit legal error by ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals