eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2003-10

Wolete v. Ashcroft , 78 F. App'x 230 ( 2003 )


Menu:
 
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1353
JOSEPH WOLETE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-916-409)
Submitted:   October 1, 2003                 Decided:   October 16, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior
Litigation Counsel, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration
Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Wolete, a native and citizen of Cameroon, 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, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.                       Wolete 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), (5) (2003).          We conclude that we lack jurisdiction
to review this claim pursuant to
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(3) (2000).                         See
Castellano-Chacon v. INS,
    341 F.3d 533
    , 544 (6th Cir. 2003);
Tarrawally v. Ashcroft,
    338 F.3d 180
    , 185-86 (3rd 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
Wolete’s asylum claim.
Accordingly,        we   deny   Wolete’s         petition      for   review.       We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
3