Manka v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GWENDOLINE KIN MANKA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-920-704)
December 29, 2006
January 22, 2007
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Gwendoline Kin Manka, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") adopting and affirming the immigration judge's order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Manka challenges the immigration judge's findings that her asylum
application was untimely and that she did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT. The timeliness of an alien's asylum application is
usually a question of fact. 93 (1st Cir. 2005). Act, which added This
See Mehilli v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 86,
On May 11, 2005, Congress enacted the Real ID a new subsection provides to the judicial review and
factual determinations are outside the jurisdiction of the court of appeals. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005); see also An
Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 2005).
exception to this provision obtains for constitutional claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief. Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). judge of erred evidence Despite as at a Manka's matter the contentions of law, and the that the
- 2 -
conclusion are factual in nature.
Accordingly, we do not have
jurisdiction to review Manka's asylum claim. Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge's denial of Manka's request for withholding of removal. "Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3)." Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because we find Manka would not be
able to show that she is eligible for asylum based on the record presented, we find she cannot meet the higher standard for
withholding of removal. We also hold that Manka fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that "it is more likely than not that he or he would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find
that Manka fails to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?