UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1959
NOELLA MBOLLE EJEDE EJEDE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI,
Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Kohsei Ugumori,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Noella Mbolle Ejede Ejede, a native and citizen of
Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s order finding her asylum application to be
untimely and denying relief from removal. We previously
dismissed the petition for review in this matter without
prejudice, and have granted Ejede’s motion to reopen her appeal.
We now dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
Ejede challenges the finding below that she failed to
establish eligibility for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2006), the Attorney General’s decision regarding whether an
alien has complied with the one-year time limit for filing an
application for asylum or established changed or extraordinary
circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not
reviewable by any court. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Ejede’s asylum application was
found to be untimely by the agency, we lack jurisdiction to
review the merits of her asylum claim.
Next, Ejede disputes the conclusion that she failed to
qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. “Withholding
of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 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
2
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 agency’s finding that Ejede failed to meet her burden of
proof. Because the evidence does not compel us to conclude to
the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. See Djadjou v.
Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S.
Ct. 788 (2012). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Ejede
did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she
would be tortured if removed to Cameroon so as to qualify for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).
We accordingly 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3