UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1708
LIONEL BAKIA ESSIM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A95-551-368)
Submitted: December 2, 2005 Decided: January 9, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Christopher C.
Fuller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lionel Bakia Essim, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from
removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture, and
denying his motion to remand. We deny the petition for review.
We have reviewed the immigration judge’s decision and the
administrative record. We are without jurisdiction to review the
decision that the application for asylum was untimely. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); see also Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d
678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004); Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 204-
05 (1st Cir. 2003); 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).
With respect to the denial of withholding from removal
and withholding under the Convention Against Torture,
administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We will reverse the
Board “only if ‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no
- 2 -
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.’” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Huaman-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d
995, 999 (4th Cir. 1992)). We find the evidence does not compel a
different conclusion.
Finally, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion
in denying the motion to remand. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993
(9th Cir. 2003).
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 -