UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1006
JOAQUINA CARLOS MARCOLINO DO NASCIMENTO; MADALENA CARLOS
MARCOLINO DO NASCIMENTO; FILIPA MARCOLINO DO NASCIMENTO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 10, 2011 Decided: September 7, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jennifer Vetter Landeo, LANDEO & CAPRIOTTI, LLC, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Timothy G.
Hayes, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joaquina Carlos Marcolino Do Nascimento, Madalena
Carlos Marcolino Do Nascimento, and Filipa Marcolino Do
Nascimento (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of
Angola, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In their brief on appeal, the Petitioners argue that
they established extraordinary circumstances to excuse their
failure to file their asylum applications within the one-year
deadline. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), and find that the
Petitioners have failed to raise a constitutional claim or
colorable question of law that would fall under the exception
set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). See Gomis v.
Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
their asylum claims. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of
their petition for review.
The Petitioners also contend that the Board and the
immigration judge erred in denying their request for withholding
of removal. “Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gomis, 571
F.3d at 359 (citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
(2006). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the denial of the Petitioners’
request for withholding of removal.
Finally, the Petitioners challenge the denial of their
request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. To
qualify for such protection, a petitioner bears the burden of
proof of showing “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) (2011). Based on our review
of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports
the denial of the Petitioners’ request for relief. See
Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir. 2007) (setting
forth standard of review).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in
part and deny the petition for review in part. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
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