Vinokur v. Ashcroft , 100 F. App'x 913 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-2096
    ARTEM NAUMOVICH VINOKUR; YOULIA MOTORINA,
    Petitioners,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
    States,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A78-585-380; A78-585-381)
    Submitted:   May 26, 2004                   Decided:   June 17, 2004
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elizaveta B. Krukova, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioners.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery,
    Senior Litigation Counsel, Alicia D. Johnson, Office of Immigration
    Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Artem Naumovich Vinokur, a native and citizen of Russia,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s
    order denying his applications for asylum and withholding of
    removal.      Vinokur challenges the immigration judge’s finding that
    his   asylum    application       was   untimely       and     that    he   failed       to
    demonstrate      a     change     in     circumstances          or     extraordinary
    circumstances        excusing     the    late        filing.          See     
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(2)(B)      (2000);    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.4
    (a)(4)       (2003).         We
    conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(3). See 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).
    Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying
    merits of Vinokur’s asylum claim.               Accordingly, we deny Vinokur’s
    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
    - 2 -