Anila Malani v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANILA MALANI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-73630
Agency No. A095-882-703
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 5, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anila Malani, a native and citizen of Albania, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming an
immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
FILED
AUG 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Malani argues that we have jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that
she failed to timely file her asylum application as required by 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(2)(B) because of the immigration judge’s conceded error in finding that
she filed her application on July 27, 2002, rather than June 27, 2002, the date
stamped on her application. Even were we to hold that we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), and that Malani has met her burden of
demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that she filed her application
within one year of her arrival in the United States, Malani’s asylum claim fails on
the merits because substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse
credibility finding.
The immigration judge provided “specific cogent reason[s]” for his adverse
credibility finding, and Malani has therefore failed to demonstrate that “any
reasonable factfinder would necessarily conclude that [she] is eligible for relief
from deportation.” Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2001).
Malani’s petition for review of the adverse credibility finding as it relates to her
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims is denied.
Malani asserts that counsel at her removal hearing provided ineffective
assistance of counsel. We decline to address Malani’s argument because she has
not raised it before the Board, see Martinez-Zelaya v. INS, 841 F.2d 294, 296 (9th
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Cir. 1988), nor has she complied with the procedural requirements established by
the Board in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Counsel’s alleged
ineffective assistance is not “obvious and undisputed on the face of the record,”
therefore compliance with Matter of Lozada’s procedural requirements is not
excused and we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592,
596–97 (9th Cir. 2004).
Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
3

-- 3 of 3 --