UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1628
LAURENT KONGADEMBOU,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-216-252)
Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 10, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Mary Jane Candaux, Senior Litigation Counsel, Anh-Thu P.
Mai, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Laurent Kongadembou, a native and citizen of the Central
African Republic, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s findings that
Kongadembou’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2000); 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 Kongadembou’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of
Kongadembou’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the
denial of his 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,
296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467
U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). A trier of fact who rejects an applicant’s
testimony on credibility grounds must offer specific, cogent
reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d 76, 78 (4th Cir.
*
Kongadembou does not challenge the denial of withholding
under the Convention Against Torture.
- 2 -
1989). This Court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference
to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence.
Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We find the
Board’s conclusion that Kongadembou was not credible to be
supported by the evidence. Accordingly, Kongadembou’s challenge to
the denial of his application for withholding from removal must
fail.
Accordingly, we deny Kongadembou’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 -