UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1660
KEDIJA ALI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-478-100)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,
Luis E. Perez, Office of Immigration Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kedija Ali, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
Ali 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 we lack jurisdiction to review
this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v.
Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).
Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying
merits of Ali’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of
Ali’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial
of her request for withholding of removal.* See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2004). “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,
*
Ali does not challenge the denial of withholding under the
Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
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
Ali failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, we deny Ali’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
- 3 -