Koli v. Mukasey , 274 F. App'x 320 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1797
MANDOLE SAMY KOLI,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-197-169)
Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 22, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey
S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mandole Samy Koli, a native and citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, seeks review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the
Immigration Judge denying relief from removal. In his petition for
review, Koli first argues that the Board erred in finding that his
asylum application was not timely filed and that no exceptions
applied to excuse the untimeliness. We lack jurisdiction to review
this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000), even
in light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743,
747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we may not review the underlying merits of
Koli’s asylum claim.
Koli also contends that the Board erred in denying his
request for withholding of removal. “To qualify for withholding of
removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability
of persecution because of his 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.
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Based on our review of the
record, we find that Koli failed to make the requisite showing.
Likewise, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Koli failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
- 2 -
that he would be tortured if removed to the Democratic Republic of
Congo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2007). We therefore uphold
the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture.
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.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
- 3 -