Narrative Opinion Summary
Li Peng petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming Immigration Judge Sandy K. Horn’s denial of her asylum application. The BIA's decision, dated September 2004, followed a prior ruling from the Immigration Court in New York City in June 2003. Under Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the U.S. Code, courts lack jurisdiction to review agency determinations regarding the timeliness of asylum applications or the existence of extraordinary circumstances for untimeliness. Despite this limitation, the court retains jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and legal questions under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). Li contends that her mental illness should be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance justifying her late application. However, the court determines this issue is factual rather than legal, thus falling outside its jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition for review is dismissed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Factual vs. Legal Issues in Asylum Applicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The determination of whether a mental illness constitutes an extraordinary circumstance is considered a factual issue, thus outside the court's jurisdiction for review.
Reasoning: Li contends that her mental illness should be regarded as an extraordinary circumstance justifying her late application. However, the court determines this issue is factual rather than legal, thus falling outside its jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional Limits on Asylum Application Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's determinations regarding the timeliness of asylum applications or the existence of extraordinary circumstances for untimeliness.
Reasoning: Under Title 8, Section 1158(a)(3) of the U.S. Code, courts lack jurisdiction to review agency determinations regarding the timeliness of asylum applications or the existence of extraordinary circumstances for untimeliness.
Retention of Jurisdiction for Constitutional Claims and Legal Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court retains jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and legal questions related to asylum under specific statutory provisions, allowing for review beyond timeliness issues.
Reasoning: Despite this limitation, the court retains jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and legal questions under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D).