Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent w ith Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
erred by concluding that petitioner was statutorily barred from filing his asylum
claim; by affirming the IJs adverse credibility findings; and by failing to make
separate credibility findings for his CAT claim. The petition for review is
dismissed in part and denied in part.
Asylum claim
An asylum application must be filed within 1 year after the date of the
aliens arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B). The BIA affirmed
the IJs determination that M r. Kalule failed to file a timely asylum application
and that M r. Kalule had not demonstrated changed or extraordinary circumstances
excusing his delay. G enerally, courts do not have jurisdiction to review a
timeliness determination made under section 1158(a)(2). See id. 1158(a)(3).
After the REAL ID Act was enacted in M ay 2005, courts were given limited
jurisdiction to review a constitutional claim or question of law related to the
timeliness determination. Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274, 1281 (10th Cir.
2006). However, challenges directed solely at the agencys discretionary and
factual determinations remain outside the scope of judicial review. Id.
M r. Kalules petition for review does not present a constitutional claim or
question of law. His argument focuses on the alleged factual circumstances
involved in the delayed filing of his asylum application and the IJs discretionary
decision that there was no good cause for the delayed filing. W e do not have
jurisdiction to review this type of challenge. See id.
-2-
2001six months after the alleged disappearance. It was therefore reasonable for
the BIA to affirm the IJs conclusion that M r. Kalule had not met his burden of
showing that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned
to Uganda.
The petition for review is DISM ISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and
DENIED in part.
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-6-