Yovivi

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FNU YOVIVI, No. 07-72822

Petitioner, Agency No. A099-339-622

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 11, 2011** San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, KLEINFELD, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Yovivi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge's decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. y 1252. We review for substantial

* 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). evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d…

concurring:

I concur.

I write separately because, although we are compelled to exercise jurisdiction by circuit precedent, I think that line of authority is mistaken. Were we not bound by circuit authority, I would dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Our court has concluded that § 106 of the REAL ID Act restores appellate jurisdiction in diverse circumstances. 1 I agree with Judge O’Scannlain’s remark in Lin v. Holder that “we have stuck our noses further into disputes in which Congress has forbidden us a role.” 2 All ten of our sister circuits to consider the issue have rejected the more expansive approach to jurisdiction adopted by our court. 3 Accordingly, *596 although the memorandum disposition we issue today is correct under circuit precedent, I think a better reading of the law would be that taken by our sister circuits.

.See, e.g., Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984-86 (9th Cir.2010) ("reasonable period” requirement for the "changed circumstances” exception to the asylum application deadline); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 857 (9th cir.2009) (threshold requirements for special rule cancellation in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act); Khan v.…

MEMORANDUM **

Yovivi, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d *595 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s timeliness determination because the BIA improperly required corroboration of Yovivi’s alleged relationship with an immigration consultant to assist her in timely preparing her application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the BIA also reached the merits of Yovivi’s claim that “extraordinary circumstances” excuse her untimely asylum application, finding Yovivi’s proffered evidence insufficient to merit relief. Yovivi provided unsubstantiated testimony and an unauthenticated letter allegedly from an immigration consultant to show she attempted to timely file for asylum.

The evidence Yovivi provided does not compel the conclusion that she established changed or…