Gilbert Eman v. Michael Mukasey

Filing 920080812

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2183

GILBERT EMAN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted:

July 22, 2008

Decided:

August 12, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Molly L. DeBusschere, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Gilbert Eman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge denying relief from removal. In his petition for review, Eman first argues that the

Board erred in finding that his asylum application was not timely filed and that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), even in light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See

Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Eman next challenges the Board's alternative finding that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal

of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien "must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution." INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that Eman fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. established eligibility for asylum, he Because Eman has not meet the more See

cannot

demanding standard for the relief of withholding of removal. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999).

- 2 -

Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

- 3 -