Azeke

MEMORANDUM **

John Azeke, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final order of re *964 moval and order denying reconsideration.1 We lack jurisdiction to consider Azeke’s untimely petition for review in 06-72987 and dismiss the petition. See Magtanong v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1190, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007), citing Bowles v. Russell, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366-67 , 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (per curiam).

As for the petition for review in 06-73795, we dismiss in part and grant in part. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion in which Azeke claims that the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration of whether changed circumstances excused the untimely asylum application. Because the issue surrounding the asylum application involves disputed facts about when Azeke’s temporary visitor’s visa expired, we lack jurisdiction to consider the claim. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007).

On the other hand, we do have jurisdiction to review whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration concerning the request for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(1); Valeriano…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I agree that we lack jurisdiction to consider Azeke’s untimely petition for review in 06-72987, and that we lack jurisdiction to consider the disputed facts in 06-73795 under Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007). I dissent only with respect to the adverse credibility remand.

We may reverse a credibility determination only if the “evidence compels a con *965 trary conclusion.” 1 Not all of the BIA’s articulated reasons need be supported, under circuit law. We affirm an adverse credibility determination “so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence” and is a specific, cogent reason that goes to the heart of the asylum claim.

The adverse credibility determination did not depend solely on the issue of whether Azeke had written a “comprehensive report,” a two page letter, or the status of the relevant official. The IJ found that Azeke did not explain enough about any of the threatening phone calls he claimed to have received to make the claim credible, such as the number of phone calls, the times of day of the phone calls, who made the telephone calls, the specific threats made, or the dates of…