The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SILAH v. MUKASEY, No. 06-73857. The panel consisted of M. Margaret McKeown and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:
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 lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the application for asylum and deny the petition for review with respect to 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). [1] 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). The statute further provides that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination under paragraph (2).” Under the REAL ID Act, however, we have jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). A “question of law” includes an issue of statutory construction as well as the application of law to undisputed facts. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007). Sillah contends that we have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s timeliness determination as a question of law. Citing Ramadan, he argues that given the IJ’s finding that his testimony. . .

The memorandum disposition filed on February 7, 2008 is withdrawn and the Clerk is ordered to file the attached opinion in its place. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in GADDA v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, No. 06-15344. The panel consisted of Jerome Farris, Robert R. Beezer, and Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

BEEZER, Circuit Judge:
Miguel Gadda (”Gadda”) appeals, pro se, the district court’s order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings. Because the retroactive application of the 2003 amendment to section 6080.10 of the Califor. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SPARKMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, No. 06-71476. The panel consisted of Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, J. Clifford Wallace A. Wallace Tashima, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
Petitioner-Appellant James Sparkman appeals the decision of the Tax Court upholding the Commissioner’s notice of deficiency with respect to tax years 1996 through 2000. See Sparkman v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo 2005-136 (2005). He objects to the Tax Court’s ruling that one of his business entities, Mercury Solar PTO, lacked economic substance and should be disregarded for income tax purposes. He contends that the Tax Court improperly excluded his amended 1997 and 2000 tax returns from evidence admitted, erred in holding that he had not substantiated several depreciation and charitable deductions, and erred in calculating his income for 1996, 1997, and 1999. Finally, he argues that the Tax Court erred in imposing accuracy-related penalties under § 6662(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.). We reject each argument, and affirm the decision of the Tax Court. I. Facts and Procedural History James Sparkman has sold solar water heating systems to homeowners since 1983. Until 1993, Sparkman operated his business as a sole proprietorship, under the registered trade name “Mercury Solar.” . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in LEWIS v. UNITED STATES OF EDUCATION, No. 06-35255. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
Appellant James Lewis seeks review of a final judgment issued by the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in favor of appellee United States Department of Education (”Department”). The bankruptcy court held and the district court affirmed that a congressional amendment to the law governing the dischargeability of a student loan obligation in bankruptcy may be retroactively applied to an obligation incurred prior to the date the law was changed. Whether the district court correctly ruled that the retroactive amendments . . .