NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-2058 ___________ JELANI ANTHONY BRISSETT, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A215-665-153) Immigration Judge: Mirlande Tadal ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 7, 2021 Before: MCKEE, SHWARTZ and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed February 10, 2021) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Jelani Brissett, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 judge (IJ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part. In 2003, Brissett, a citizen of Jamaica, entered the United States as a visitor when he was approximately nine years old. In May 2019, the Government charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), as an alien who remained in the United States longer than permitted. Brissett, through counsel, admitted the allegations; conceded removability; and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. Following a hearing, the IJ denied relief, concluding, among other things, that the asylum application was untimely because it was not filed within a year of entry or within a reasonable time after Brissett’s eighteenth birthday. Brissett, still represented by counsel, filed an appeal to the BIA but did not challenge the denial of his asylum application on timeliness grounds. The BIA concluded that Brissett had waived any challenge to the IJ’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision denying withholding of removal, agreeing that Brissett had failed to show a probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA also agreed with the IJ that Brissett was not entitled to CAT relief because he had failed to put forth objective evidence establishing that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Jamaica. The BIA accordingly dismissed the appeal. Brissett filed a timely petition for review to this Court. We have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). However, to the extent that Brissett raises a challenge to the IJ’s ruling that his asylum 2 application was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review the determination because he does not raise a constitutional claim or a question of law.1 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Jarbough v. Att’y Gen., 483 F.3d 184, 188-90 (3d Cir. 2007); Sukwanputra v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 627, 633-35 (3d Cir. 2006). Furthermore, we also lack jurisdiction to review this decision because Brissett failed to challenge the timeliness determination before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) (providing that a court may review ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals