UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1235
ERITREA FISEHAYE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-469-407)
Submitted: July 7, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eritrea Fisehaye, Petitioner Pro Se. Emily Anne Radford, Aviva L.
Poczter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eritrea Fisehaye, 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 order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Fisehaye challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
her asylum application was untimely because she failed to show by
clear and convincing evidence that she filed her application within
one year of the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack
jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000). 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
Fisehaye’s asylum claim.
While we do not have jurisdiction to consider the
immigration judge’s denial of Fisehaye’s asylum claim, we retain
jurisdiction to consider the denial of her requests for withholding
of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time limitation.
- 2 -
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of
removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear
probability of persecution because of h[er] 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)). Based on our
review of the record, we find that Fisehaye has failed to meet this
standard.*
Accordingly, we deny Fisehaye’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
*
Fisehaye does not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of
her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture in
her petition for review.
- 3 -