Sillah

concurring:

I concur in the judgment based on section II of the majority memorandum, with which I agree. I am not persuaded by the reasoning contained in section I of the majority memorandum, but that does not affect the outcome of this case.

ORDER

The opinion filed on March 27, 2008, 519 F.3d 1042 , is withdrawn and replaced by a memorandum disposition filed concurrently. The petition for rehearing is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Foday Sillah, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, applied for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Sillah’s appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction to review the denial of the application for asylum but deny the petition for review with respect to the claim for asylum and withholding of removal.

I.

Sillah contends first that the IJ erred in finding that he failed to demonstrate that his asylum application was timely filed. The government argues that we have no jurisdiction to review the IJ’s timeliness determination. We determine our jurisdiction de novo. Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1221 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted).

An applicant for asylum must “demonstrate!;] by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B).…