UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2474
GRACE PETRAL ANYIKE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-100-373)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: August 22, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Joel E.
Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Grace Petral Anyike, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s
order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Anyike challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
she failed to demonstrate 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 determination 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 Anyike’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling
on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial
of Anyike’s requests for withholding of removal and protection
under the CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2005). “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 (1994)). To qualify for
protection under the CAT, a petitioner bears the burden of
- 2 -
demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would
be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Based on our review of the record,
we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Anyike failed to meet these standards.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
- 3 -