Vacated by Supreme Court, January 9, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1553
MOHAMED LAMINE DIAWARA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-504-480)
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa I. Obot, LAW OFFICE OF THERESA I. OBOT, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Larry P.
Cote, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mohamed Lamine Diawara, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the
immigration judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of
deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Diawara challenges the IJ’s findings that his asylum
application was untimely and he failed to establish extraordinary
circumstances for an exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2) (2000).
We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim or the
merits of his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000); Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004).
We also lack jurisdiction over Diawara’s challenges to the IJ’s
denial of withholding of deportation and relief under the
Convention Against Torture because he failed to properly exhaust
these claims in his appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)
(2000); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we dismiss the 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 DISMISSED
- 2 -