Kourouma v. Gonzales

Fourth Circuit

Kourouma v. Gonzales

228 F. App'x 288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 2007

Docket06-2095

StatusUnpublished

This text of 228 F. App'x 288 (Kourouma v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kourouma v. Gonzales, 228 F. App'x 288 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Affoue Mamousso Kourouma, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the immigration judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. *

*289 Kourouma seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to file her asylum application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States, or to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing timely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (C) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Kourouma’s asylum claim.

We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider the denial of Kourouma’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2006). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing INS v. Stevie, 467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that Kourouma failed to meet this standard.

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.

*

Kourouma does not challenge in this appeal the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, and therefore has abandoned that claim. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.2001).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Affoue Mamousso Kourouma, a native and citizen of the Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the immigration judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. *

*289 Kourouma seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s finding that she failed to file her asylum application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States, or to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing timely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (C) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Kourouma’s asylum claim.

We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider the denial of Kourouma’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2006). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n. 13 (4th Cir.2002) (citing INS v. Stevie, 467 U.S. 407, 430, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that Kourouma failed to meet this standard.

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.

*

Kourouma does not challenge in this appeal the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, and therefore has abandoned that claim. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.2001).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F. App'x 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kourouma-v-gonzales-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack