NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HANJUN SHEN, AKA Haijun Shen, No. 18-70980 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-671-555 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 7, 2020** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: OWENS, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Hanjun Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). * 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). First, Shen argues he qualifies for an exception to his time-barred asylum application. We lack jurisdiction to review this claim. Second, he argues the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. 1. We have limited jurisdiction to review exceptions to time-barred asylum applications. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2008). Unless an asylum seeker’s claimed exception raises “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), we may not review the agency’s denial of an exception. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Thus, if the agency rests its decision denying an exception on its resolution of an “underlying factual dispute,” we lack jurisdiction to review the ruling. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the IJ determined that Shen’s explanation for the delay did not qualify for the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to the one-year deadline for asylum claims. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). Shen maintains he delayed filing his application because he feared the government would retaliate against his family in China. The government contests this fact, and the IJ resolved the dispute in the government’s favor. Faced with a factual dispute (and because no question of law or constitutionality was raised), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial 2 of the exception and must dismiss Shen’s petition to the extent it challenges the agency’s resolution of his asylum claim. 2. When the BIA expresses no disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, but instead cites In re Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), “we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the BIA.” Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008). An IJ’s adverse credibility determination is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and we must uphold this determination “so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals