NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAHESH PARSRAM LAKHANI, No. 18-70838 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-957-745 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 9, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: MILLER and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and SCHILTZ,*** District Judge. Mahesh Lakhani, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s * 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 Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition. 1. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s determination that the immigration judge properly declined to consider Lakhani’s asylum application because he filed it more than two years after arriving in the United States and did not establish extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing. We do not “have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General” regarding whether “extraordinary circumstances [exist] relating to the delay in filing an application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D), (a)(3); see id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Lakhani notes that we have jurisdiction to review questions of law, including “application of law to undisputed facts.” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). But we have no jurisdiction to resolve mixed questions of law and fact when the underlying facts are disputed, see Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013), and here, they are. Lakhani asserts that his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and his reliance on incorrect legal advice “prevented him from timely filing his application for asylum.” But the Board rejected Lakhani’s argument based on PTSD, upholding the immigration judge’s findings that Lakhani’s “claim[] that he suffered from [PTSD] . . . [was] not credible,” and that his PTSD “did not impair or affect [his] cognitive abilities 2 and/or functioning in other significant ways.” And although the Board did not expressly address the claim of reliance on faulty legal advice, the facts relating to that claim were disputed: Lakhani’s own testimony shows that the delay in filing occurred because he “did not know anything about asylum,” and that he did not seek the advice of an immigration attorney because he “didn’t have that kind of money to spend.” 2. Nor did the Board violate Lakhani’s due process rights by declining to address his application for asylum on the merits after we granted an earlier petition for review and remanded to the Board. While the general scope of our ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals