Eman v. Mukasey , 288 F. App'x 125 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2183
GILBERT EMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: August 12, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Molly
L. DeBusschere, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gilbert Eman, a native and citizen of Indonesia, 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, Eman 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) (2006), 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).
Eman next challenges the Board’s alternative finding that
he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal
of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must
show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of
persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Eman fails to show
that the evidence compels a contrary result. Because Eman has not
established eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the more
demanding standard for the relief of withholding of removal. See
Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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 -