Kourouma v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
AFFOUE MAMOUSSO KOUROUMA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A98-320-872)
April 25, 2007
May 23, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Gregory M. Kelch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Affoue Mamousso Kourouma, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the
immigration judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Kourouma seeks to challenge the immigration judge's
finding that she failed to file her asylum application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States, or to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing timely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (C) (2000). We conclude
that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004) See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, (collecting cases). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Kourouma's asylum claim. We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider the denial of Kourouma's request for withholding of removal. § 1208.4(a) (2006). See 8 C.F.R.
"To qualify for withholding of removal, a
petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality,
Kourouma does not challenge in this appeal the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, and therefore has abandoned that claim. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir. 2001). - 2 -
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the
record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's holding that Kourouma failed to meet this standard. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.
- 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?