Angele Sopi v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1510
ANGELE MBAKO SOPI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of An Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 20, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Danielle Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES,
PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Michelle G. Latour, Deputy Director,
Victor M. Lawrence, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Angele Mbako Sopi, 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 denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT).
Sopi first challenges the agency’s determination that she
failed to file her asylum application within one year of her
arrival in the United States, and failed to qualify for an
exception to excuse the untimely filing. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2014). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that Sopi has not raised any
claims that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of
the petition for review.
Sopi next contends that the agency erred in its alternative
finding that she failed to establish eligibility for asylum and
withholding of removal, and that she did not qualify for CAT
protection. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude
that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to
any of the agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review in
part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Sopi
(B.I.A. May 5, 2014).
We therefore 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
*
Sopi has filed a “motion to file brief in existing form,”
which we have construed as a motion for leave to file addendum
to brief. Specifically, Sopi seeks to include with her opening
brief a number of exhibits that were not part of the
administrative record upon which the order of removal was based.
Because we may not consider these documents, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (2012), we deny the motion.
3