UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1697
EUGENE MAXIMILIEN NDJIKI NYA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-611-066)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul S. Haar, Pauline M. Schwartz, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. HAAR,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Thomas K.
Ragland, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eugene Maximilien Ndjiki Nya, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the
immigration judge. The Board concluded that Ndjiki Nya did not
bear his burden of establishing the timely filing of his
application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D) (2000);
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2), (a)(4) (2003). We conclude that we lack
jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to § 1158(a)(3).
We can review denial of Ndjiki Nya’s request for
withholding of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time
limit on asylum claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a). “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 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002)
(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). The Board denied
withholding because Ndjiki Nya’s evidence was not credible. Based
on our review of the record and the decision of the immigration
judge, we find that the Board did not err in finding that Ndjiki
Nya failed to show a “clear probability of persecution” if he were
returned to Cameroon.
Ndjiki Nya challenges the Board’s denial of his motion to
remand. We review the denial of a motion to remand for abuse of
- 2 -
discretion. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). The
Board abuses its discretion when it “fails to offer a reasoned
explanation for its decision, distorts or disregards important
aspects of the alien’s claim.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and conclude that
it did not abuse its discretion in this case.
Finally, Ndjiki Nya contends that the immigration judge
denied him due process by usurping the role of prosecutor by
questioning Ndjiki Nya and his witness. In order to succeed on a
procedural due process claim, an alien must make a showing of
prejudice. See Rusu, 296 F.3d at 324; Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d
697, 703 n.7 (4th Cir. 1990). A reviewing court can find prejudice
only “when the rights of [an] alien have been transgressed in such
a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceeding.” Rusu,
296 F.3d at 320-21 (internal quotations omitted). Ndjiki Nya fails
to establish that his rights have been transgressed. The
immigration judge is charged by statute to “administer oaths,
receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the
alien and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(1) (2000). We
conclude that the immigration judge did not exceed his statutory
authority in doing so in this case.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
- 4 -