Anand Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANAND SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74867
Agency No. A097-349-946
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Anand Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Specifically, he asserts that the BIA
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Singh does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he is not entitled to1
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
2
erred when it determined that his asylum application was untimely. We dismiss1
the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review timeliness determinations, 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3), unless they present “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We have held that “our jurisdiction over ‘questions of
law’ as defined in the Real ID Act includes not only ‘pure’ issues of statutory
interpretation, but also application of law to undisputed facts, sometimes referred
to as mixed questions of law and fact.” Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 479 F.3d 646, 648
(9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), reh’g en banc denied, 504 F.3d 973; see generally
Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 650-54.
Here, Singh’s challenge to the IJ’s timeliness determination is a purely
factual dispute concerning the date that he entered the United States. Cf. id. at 650
n.4. The IJ pointed to inconsistencies and deficiencies in the evidence offered by
Singh, including his testimony, and found that Singh failed to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that he applied for asylum within a year after entering the
United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Because the timeliness issue is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
neither a question of law nor a mixed question of law and fact, we lack jurisdiction
over Singh’s petition.
Singh’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --