NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, AKA No. 18-70423 Muhammad Ashraf Khan; NAILA ASHRAF, AKA Naila Gul, Agency Nos. A096-489-393 A096-489-394 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 20, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KELLY*** and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Muhammad Ashraf and Naila Ashraf petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing their appeal of * 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 Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioners argue that the IJ and Board’s determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Mr. Ashraf claims that he fears persecution if he and his family were to return to Pakistan. As a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), he fears persecution by the ruling government. Mr. Ashraf also fears he will be targeted as a returning Pakistani viewed as an American spy. Mr. Ashraf also claims that his asylum application was delayed because he was misled by two contacts who promised to assist him with filing a claim, but who failed to do so. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the challenge to the finding that Petitioners untimely filed their applications for asylum for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition for review of the remaining claims. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedure underlying this case, we need not recount them in detail here. STANDARD OF REVIEW Where the Board incorporates an IJ’s decision, this court reviews both decisions together. Sowe v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1281, 1285 (9th Cir. 2008). We review the Board’s determination for substantial evidence and will overturn if the evidence compels the conclusion that the decision was incorrect. Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 2 DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction to Review This court lacks jurisdiction to review the determination that Mr. Ashraf failed to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his failure to timely file his asylum application. Applicants must file an asylum application within one year of arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The Attorney General may excuse the deadline if the applicant demonstrates “extraordinary circumstances” for a filing delay. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Congress limited jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). However, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), the court can review questions of law ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals