Tesfaye v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1799

HELINA TESFAYE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-478-397)

Submitted: December 24, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part, and denied in part by unpublished per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

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director,
Elisabeth Layton, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Helina Tesfaye, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s

(IJ) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of

removal.

Tesfaye first challenges the IJ’s finding that her asylum

application is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2000);

8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4) (2003). We conclude that we lack

jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)

(2000). Tesfaye next disputes the IJ’s finding that she failed to

qualify for withholding of removal. We have reviewed the record

and the IJ’s decision, which was designated by the Board as the

final agency determination, and find that she indeed failed to meet

her burden of proof to establish her eligibility for this relief.

See Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002).

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part 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.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART,
AND DENIED IN PART

- 2 -