UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2049
IBRAHIMA MOUNTAGA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: August 7, 2009
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Peter T. Ndikum, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Lyle
D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ibrahima Mountaga, a native and citizen of Mali,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of
his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
We cannot review the Board’s denial of Mountaga’s
asylum claim because the immigration judge concluded that
Mountaga failed to file his asylum application within one year
of the date of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2006). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to
review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3)(2006). 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, this “factual determination[]
continue[s] to fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of
appeals entertaining a petition for review”).
Although 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)
(2008). “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
2
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)). Mountaga challenges the immigration
judge’s determination that his testimony was not credible, and
that he otherwise failed to meet his 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) (2006). 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
Mountaga failed to present a credible claim for withholding of
removal.
Finally, as Mountaga makes no argument in his opening
brief regarding the disposition of his claim for protection
under the Convention Against Torture, we conclude that he has
waived this issue. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326
(4th Cir. 2001) (failure to challenge denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture in opening brief constitutes
abandonment of that issue); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to
3
raise a specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment
of that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that
the argument section of the opening brief contain contentions,
reasoning, and authority).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as to
Mountaga’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
AND DENIED IN PART
4