
    Aneap SIAD, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74850.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    E. Dennis Muchnieki, Esquire, Muchnicki Law, Dublin, OH, for Petitioner.
    Melissa Leibman, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aneap Siad, native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Siad failed to timely file her asylum application because the underlying facts are disputed. Cf Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam).

We deny Siad’s claim for withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission from Siad’s asylum application that she was grazed by bullets as she fled the orphanage in Somalia, which formed the basis for her claim. See Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir.2010).

Siad’s request for oral argument is denied.

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