Babbar

MEMORANDUM

Petitioners, Kiran Kaur Babbar and her son Abhishek Babbar, seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming and adopting an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision to deny their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

1. We lack jurisdiction over the one-year bar to the asylum application because that issue involves disputed facts. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a)(3), 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Halcopian v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir.2008); Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 765-66 (9th Cir.2008); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 649-50 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We lack jurisdiction over Petitioners’ argument that the government is estopped from relying on disputed facts because that argument was not exhausted before the IJ or BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (“It is a well-known axiom of administrative law that if a petitioner wishes to preserve an issue for appeal, he must first raise it in the proper administrative forum.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. We deny the petition as to withholding of removal and CAT because the…