Case: 17-10312 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10312
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-096-069
MARIAMA JALLOW,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 3, 2017)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10312 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 2 of 3
Mariama Jallow seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her
application for asylum. She challenges the BIA’s determinations that (1) her
application was untimely and that (2) she failed to show extraordinary
circumstances to excuse her delay in filing the asylum application.
We review BIA decisions and decisions of the IJ to the extent the BIA
expressly adopted them. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir.
2010). We determine de novo whether we have subject-matter jurisdiction. Ruiz v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 2007). We do so sua sponte. Chacon-
Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2005).
An application for asylum must be filed within one year of arrival in the
United States. INA § 208(a)(2)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). However, an
untimely application may be considered if the alien demonstrates, to the
satisfaction of the Attorney General, the existence of changed circumstances or
extraordinary circumstances relating to delay in filing an application. INA §
208(a)(2)(D); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). No court shall have jurisdiction to review
any determination of the Attorney General as to the timeliness of an application.
INA § 208(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). This jurisdictional restriction does not
preclude consideration of questions of law or constitutional questions. INA §
242(a)(2)(D); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In Chacon-Botero, this Court held that it
2
Case: 17-10312 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 3 of 3
does not have jurisdiction to review whether an alien complied with the one-year
time limitation or whether extraordinary or changed circumstances justified an
untimely filing of the asylum application. 427 F.3d at 957. This Court has further
clarified that the timeliness of an asylum application is not a constitutional claim or
question of law under INA § 242(a)(2)(D) or 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Id.
Under the prior panel precedent rule, the holding of the first panel to address
an issue is the law of the Circuit. Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8
(11th Cir. 2001). The first panel holding binds all subsequent panels until either
the Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc overrules it. Id.
Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s and IJ’s
determination that Jallow did not show changed or extraordinary circumstances
that excused her late asylum application. See Chacon-Botero, 427 F.3d at 957.
Despite Jallow’s urgings to reconsider our precedent, the precedent of Chacon-
Botero binds this Court. See Smith, 236 F.3d at 1300 n.8. Since the timeliness
issues are the only ones presented, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3