Elhaj v. Ashcroft , 96 F. App'x 121 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2167
KHALID ELHAJ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-505-889)
Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: April 28, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls Church,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Elizabeth J.
Stevens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Khalid Elhaj, a native and citizen of Sudan, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
affirming an immigration judge’s decision finding that Elhaj’s
asylum application was untimely filed and denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the United
Nations’ Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the following
reasons, we deny Elhaj’s petition for review.
Elhaj first argues that the Board erred in utilizing its
streamlining regulations in his case, pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(e)(4)(i) (2003). Counsel for the Government responds that
the Board’s decision was issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5)
(2003) and contained no error of fact or law. We agree with the
Government’s position and find no merit to Elhaj’s arguments to the
contrary. Moreover, to the extent that Elhaj attacks the
constitutionality of the Board’s streamlining regulations as a
violation of due process, we recently found such a claim without
merit. See Belbruno v. Ashcroft, F.3d , 2004 WL 603501 (4th
Cir. Mar. 29, 2004 (No. 02-2142)).
Next, Elhaj claims the immigration judge erred in finding
that his asylum application was not timely filed, and the Board
likewise erred in affirming the immigration judge’s ruling on this
point. We may not review the immigration judge’s and the Board’s
determinations that an asylum applicant has failed to file a timely
- 2 -
application. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), the Attorney General’s
decision regarding whether an alien has complied with the one-year
time limit or established extraordinary or changed circumstances
justifying waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any
court. Moreover, a number of other circuits have held that this
jurisdiction-stripping provision precludes federal appellate court
review. See Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 205 (1st Cir. 2003);
Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 542-44 (6th Cir. 2003);
Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185 (3d Cir. 2003); Molina-
Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002); Fahim v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Ismailov v.
Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).
Finally, Elhaj contends the Board erred in affirming the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and the denial of
his withholding of removal claim and protection under the CAT. We
have reviewed the immigration judge’s and the Board’s decisions and
conclude that the reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to
decide to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000);
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny Elhaj’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
- 3 -