NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QI LI, No. 13-73142
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-603-742
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Qi Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
application of the extraordinary circumstances exception to undisputed facts. Singh
v. Holder, 656 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Li established extraordinary
circumstances to excuse his untimely-filed asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1208.4(a)(5). Thus, we deny the petition for review.
We reject, as unsupported by the record, Li’s claim that the IJ was biased.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Li’s other contentions regarding
the sufficiency of his corroborative evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73142