UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1808
TANYI ERNEST AYAMBA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-937-614)
Submitted: January 12, 2007 Decided: February 26, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Payne, BLAIR & LEE, P.C., College Park, Maryland, for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jennifer A.
Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tanyi Ernest Ayamba, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s decision
denying his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
On appeal, Ayamba contends that the Board erred in
finding that he failed to meet his burden of establishing his
eligibility for asylum. The record reveals, however, that the
asylum application was denied on the ground that Ayamba failed to
demonstrate that he filed his application within one year of the
date of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
Ayamba’s asylum claim.
Ayamba also contends that the Board and immigration judge
erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. “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)). Based on
our review of the record, we find that Ayamba failed to make the
- 2 -
requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore
uphold the denial of his request for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Ayamba fails to meet the standard for relief under the
Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant
must establish 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). We find that Ayamba failed to
make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
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 -