UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1135
LEONNEL CEDRICK YONTA,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: October 1, 2008
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOC.,
PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant
Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Leonnel Cedrick Yonta, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial
of his applications for relief from removal. Yonta first
challenges the finding that he failed to show changed or
extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing of his
asylum application. We have reviewed Yonta’s claims and conclude
that we lack jurisdiction to review them. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir.
2006) (collecting cases).
Next, Yonta challenges the finding below that he failed
to qualify 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)). Having conducted
our review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
finding that Yonta did not establish eligibility for withholding of
removal. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Yonta failed to
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
2
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3