Bazie v. Gonzales ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1820
BAZOMBIE PROSPER BAZIE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the
United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-187-336)
Submitted: February 17, 2006 Decided: March 1, 2006
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright,
Assistant Director, Gretchen M. Wolfinger, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bazombie Prosper Bazie, a native and citizen of Burkina
Faso, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum,* withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Bazie contends that the Board
and immigration judge 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 Bazie
failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court.
We therefore uphold the denial of his request for withholding of
removal.
Bazie also challenges the denial of his claim for
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because he failed
to raise this claim before the Board, we find that we have no
jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
*
Bazie does not challenge the Board’s finding that he was
statutorily barred from asylum. He has therefore waived appellate
review of his asylum claim. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178
F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
(2000) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . .
the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to
the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3
(4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861 (2005) (holding that
we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not raised
before the Board).
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
- 3 -