UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2282
TINSAYE T. HABTE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-203-894)
Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tinsaye T. Habte, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Eric Warren Marsteller, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tinsaye T. Habte, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* We deny her
petition.
Habte seeks to challenge the Board’s finding that she
failed to file her asylum 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 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 Habte’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 Habte’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2005) (one-year time limit on asylum claims does not
apply to withholding of removal). “To qualify for withholding of
removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability
*
Habte has waived any challenge to the Board’s denial of
relief under the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise the
issue in her informal brief. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318,
326 (4th Cir. 2001)); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
- 2 -
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) (citations
omitted). Based on our review of the record, we find that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that Habte failed
to meet this standard.
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 -