Andaya v. Holder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIE MICHELLE ANDAYA, No. 07-71423
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-069-833
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and COGAN,
District Judge.**
Marie Michele Andaya, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for
review of an order denying asylum and withholding of removal. The petition is
denied.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, U. S. District Judge for the Eastern
District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.
An immigration judge (IJ) concluded that her application for asylum was
time barred. The one-year bar faced by an asylum applicant and the bar’s exception
for “extraordinary circumstances” involve mixed questions of law and fact,
reviewable by this court when the facts, as here, are undisputed. Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2),
8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5). Andaya has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating
extraordinary circumstances that justify the almost two-year period between losing
her legal immigration status and applying for asylum. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.4(a)(5).
In addressing Andaya’s request for withholding of removal, the IJ found that
none of the past incidents faced by Andaya rose to the level of persecution and
Andaya had not established that it was more likely than not that she would be
persecuted upon her return to the Philippines. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16. Substantial
evidence does not compel a contrary result. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 & n.1 (1992).
PETITION DENIED.