Essim v. Gonzales

161 F. App'x 299

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 9, 2006
• Docket: 05-1708
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Bakia Essim, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture, and denying his motion to remand. We deny the petition for review.

We have reviewed the immigration judge’s decision and the administrative record. We are without jurisdiction to review the decision that the application for asylum was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); see also Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004); Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 204-05 (1st Cir.2003); Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir.2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir.2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir.2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir.2001).

With respect to the denial of withholding from removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture, 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) (2000). We will reverse the Board “only if ‘the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’ ” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting Huamanr-Cornelio v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 999 (4th Cir.1992)). We find the evidence does not compel a different conclusion.

Finally, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remand. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED