## Facts

- Xiao Ji Chen, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States without lawful status.
- Chen alleged that Chinese family-planning officials forced her to undergo an abortion and later threatened to sterilize her.
- About eleven months after arriving in the United States, Chen was detained and placed in removal proceedings.
- Chen applied for asylum nearly fifteen months after entry, beyond the one-year filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B).
- Before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Chen argued that “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances” excused the late filing.
- The IJ rejected the asylum application as untimely, finding no qualifying changed or extraordinary circumstances.
- The IJ also found that, even if the asylum application were timely, Chen had not shown a credible, sufficiently supported claim of past persecution or future harm and therefore denied relief (including withholding of removal and related protection claims).
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion.
- Chen petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the REAL ID Act’s addition of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), the court had jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Chen’s asylum application was untimely and not excused by changed or extraordinary circumstances.
2. How broadly “constitutional claims or questions of law” in § 1252(a)(2)(D) should be read, including whether it can cover some applications of law to fact.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of withholding of removal (and any related protection claims pursued in the petition).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit **dismissed the petition in part** for lack of jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Chen’s asylum application was untimely and not excused by changed or extraordinary circumstances.
- The court held that § 1252(a)(2)(D) restores jurisdiction over “constitutional claims or questions of law,” and that the phrase is not limited to narrow statutory-construction questions; it can reach certain application-of-law questions.
- Even under that broader reading, Chen’s timeliness challenge was treated as a dispute over factfinding and discretionary judgment about whether her circumstances fit the statutory exceptions, not a reviewable legal or constitutional claim.
- The court **denied the petition in part** on the merits as to withholding of removal, concluding that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of relief were supported by substantial evidence.
- Although the IJ’s reasoning contained some mistakes, the court declined to remand because the remaining, supported grounds were sufficient and remand would not change the outcome.

## Legal Principles

- The REAL ID Act, through 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), restores appellate review of “constitutional claims or questions of law” despite other jurisdiction-stripping provisions in the immigration statutes.
- “Questions of law” under § 1252(a)(2)(D) are not confined to pure statutory interpretation and may reach some challenges to the application of legal standards, but they do not convert challenges to factfinding, credibility, or discretionary weighing of evidence into reviewable legal questions.
- Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), courts generally lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determinations about the one-year asylum filing bar and the applicability of the changed-circumstances or extraordinary-circumstances exceptions when the challenge is factual or discretionary in substance.
- Adverse credibility determinations and related denials of withholding of removal are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard and are upheld unless a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the opposite result.
- Remand is not required where identified errors do not affect the result and the agency would reach the same decision on the supported grounds.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit read the REAL ID Act’s “constitutional claims or questions of law” language broadly, but still dismissed Chen’s attempt to contest the agency’s untimeliness ruling as a nonreviewable factual/discretionary dispute, and it upheld the denial of withholding of removal because substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and remand would not alter the outcome.


Chen v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 315 (2006)