Gurdeep Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72402
Agency No. A099-403-677
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gurdeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and for substantial
* 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).
FILED
JUN 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 13-72402
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1088
(9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s conclusion that Singh did not
establish extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay in filing his asylum
application because the underlying facts are disputed. See Gasparyan v. Holder,
707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petitioner’s
challenge to the agency’s extraordinary circumstances determination because it
rested on an underlying factual dispute about whether petitioner’s filing delay was
caused by mental disability or a lack of money and language ability). We reject
any contention that the agency ignored facts, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d
592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006), or applied the wrong legal standard to the extraordinary
circumstances claim, see Gasparyan, 707 F.3d at 1134-35.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --