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The memorandum disposition filed on February 7, 2008 is withdrawn and the Clerk is ordered to file the attached opinion in its place.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