Kaur

Kaur v. Mukasey

Good Law
268 F. App'x 513
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 2008No. 04-75817California347 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Manpreet Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Findings made by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) are reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard, and will be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir.2004).

The IJ determined that Kaur’s asylum application was barred because it was filed more than one year after she entered the country. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (a)(2)(B), (D). The IJ further found that Kaur was not credible and that she did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. Without deciding whether the reasoning of Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir.2007) extends to give this court jurisdiction over the question of whether extraordinary circumstances excused the tardiness of Kaur’s asylum application, we deny the Petition for Review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Kaur was not credible and that she failed to establish eligibility for relief from removal,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.