UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2096
ARTEM NAUMOVICH VINOKUR; YOULIA MOTORINA,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-585-380; A78-585-381)
Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizaveta B. Krukova, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Alicia D. Johnson, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Artem Naumovich Vinokur, a native and citizen of Russia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of
removal. Vinokur challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to
demonstrate a change in circumstances or extraordinary
circumstances excusing the late filing. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (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). See Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533,
544 (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86
(3d Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th
Cir. 2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216,
1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th
Cir. 2001); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).
Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying
merits of Vinokur’s asylum claim. Accordingly, we deny Vinokur’s
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 DENIED
- 2 -