UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1337
NENE BELLA BALDE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-644-346)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Annette M. Wietecha, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nene Bella Balde, a native and citizen of Guinea,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her
requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
We cannot review the Board’s denial of Balde’s asylum
claim because the immigration judge concluded, and the Board
affirmed, that Balde 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). Accordingly, 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); see also Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d
766, 768 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that even in light of the REAL ID
Act of 2005, these “factual determinations continue to fall outside
the jurisdiction of the court of appeals entertaining a petition
for review”).
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling
on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial
of withholding of removal.* See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2006). “To
*
As Balde does not challenge the Board’s denial of relief under
the Convention Against Torture, any such claim has been abandoned
on appeal. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6
(4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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)). Balde
challenges the immigration judge’s determination that her testimony
was not credible, and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden
of proof for withholding of removal. 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 accord broad, though not unlimited, deference to
credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We will uphold the
final agency determination if it is not “manifestly contrary to
law.” Id. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Balde
failed to present a credible claim for withholding of removal.
We dismiss the petition for review as to Balde’s asylum
claim and deny the remainder of the petition. 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 IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
- 3 -