
    Marie Michelle ANDAYA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71423.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted May 3, 2011.
    Filed July 7, 2011.
    Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Reeves & Associates, APLC, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Timothy Hayes, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

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.

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, renewable 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 Anda-ya 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, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     