UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1823
MARY KASOKA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-287-089)
Submitted: January 31, 2006 Decided: February 15, 2006
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Andrew A. Steinberg, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mary Kasoka, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) order denying her applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). Kasoka contends that she established eligibility for
asylum. As the IJ and Board concluded that the asylum application
was untimely, we find that consideration of Kasoka’s asylum claim
is barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).
Kasoka also challenges the finding that she failed to
qualify for withholding of removal and for protection under CAT.
“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)). To qualify
for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a petitioner
bears the burden of 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). Having conducted
our review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Kasoka failed to meet these standards.
- 2 -
We accordingly 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 -