UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1614
MAHAMAN LAWAN OUMAROU MALAM, a/k/a Mahaman Malam Lawan
Oumarou; SOUWEBA MAMAN BALLA, a/k/a Souweba Mamn Balla Mme
Moussa Alou,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Anser Ahmad, ADVANCED IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director, Robert Michael
Stalzer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mahaman Lawan Oumarou Malam and Souweba Maman Balla,
both natives and citizens of Niger, petition for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing
their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of their
applications for relief from removal.
Petitioners first dispute the Board’s finding that
their asylum applications were not timely filed and that no
exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness. We have reviewed
Petitioners’ claims in this regard and find that we do not have
jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 445 (4th
Cir. 2011).
Petitioners next challenge the Board’s alternative
finding that they failed to establish eligibility for asylum.
To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for
relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was
so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find
the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of
record and Petitioners’ claims and conclude that Petitioners
fail to show that the evidence compels a contrary result.
Having failed to qualify for asylum, Petitioners cannot meet the
more stringent standard for withholding of removal. Chen v.
2
INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Finally, we have considered
Petitioners’ contention that the Immigration Judge improperly
questioned them at the hearing and find it to be lacking in
merit.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3