Kouami Dounou v. Michael Mukasey
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KOUAMI DOUNOU; AFANDJI DOUNOU, Petitioners, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
December 17, 2008
January 22, 2009
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mina Bahgat, FAYAD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kouami Dounou ("Dounou") and his wife, Afandji Dounou, (collectively petition for "Petitioners"), review of two natives separate and citizens of the of Togo, of
Immigration Appeals ("Board") dismissing their appeals from the immigration judge's decisions denying their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Dounou is the primary applicant for asylum; See 8
the claims of his wife are derivative of his application. U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2008).
In their petition for review, the Petitioners first argue that they established extraordinary circumstances to
excuse Dounou's failure to file his asylum application within one year of his arrival. We lack jurisdiction to review this See Almuhtaseb
claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006).
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we also cannot review
the underlying merits of the Petitioners' asylum claims. The Petitioners also contend that the immigration
judge erred in denying their request for withholding of removal. "To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 2
n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2008). Based on our review
of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite
showing before the immigration court.
We therefore uphold the
denial of their request for withholding of removal. 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
decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
The Petitioners fail to raise any specific issues regarding the denial of their request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in their brief before this court and have therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) ("[T]he argument . . . must contain . . . appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies."); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) ("Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal."); see also Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
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?