UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1814
AISSATA TRAORE,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-733-583)
Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 10, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Richbourg, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S.
Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi,
Senior Litigation Counsel, Song E. Park, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Aissata Traore, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying her requests for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In her petition for review, Traore first asserts that the
Board erred in finding she failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that she filed her asylum application within
one year of her arrival in the United States. We lack jurisdiction
to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000). Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007);
see Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006)
(collecting cases). Traore’s due process challenge we find to be
merely an attack on the immigration judge’s weighing of the
evidence and factual findings, and therefore not within the
jurisdictional exception of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005
& Supp. 2007). Given the jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the
underlying merits of Traore’s asylum claim.
Traore also contends that the Board and the immigration
judge erred in denying her request for withholding of removal.
“[A]n alien asserting a claim for withholding of removal on
persecution grounds must show that it is more likely than not that
her life or freedom would be threatened in the proposed country of
- 2 -
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion.” Niang, 492 F.3d
at 510 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on
our review of the record, we hold that Traore failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore
uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal.
We also find that substantial evidence supports the
denial of 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) (2007). We
find that Traore failed to sustain her burden of proof 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 -