Naadubon v. Ashcroft , 70 F. App'x 160 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 3, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60754
Summary Calendar
BARINE NAADUBON,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76-417-139
- - - - - - - - - -
Before JOLLY, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Barine Naadubon petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s (the Board’s) decision dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision to deny
his application for asylum, for withholding of deportation, and,
alternatively, for voluntary departure. The Board summarily
affirmed the IJ’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7).
See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-60754
-2-
The IJ found that Naadubon failed to file timely his
application for asylum. This ruling, which Naadubon has
not challenged, is not reviewable by a court. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 318 F.3d 1226, 1229-30
(10th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, as to the denial of the asylum
application, the petition for review is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
Naadubon’s petition for review of the denial of withholding
of removal is denied because the Board’s ruling is supported by
substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. I.N.S., 78 F.3d
194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Naadubon has waived any challenge to the Board’s denial of
his application for voluntary departure, by failing to brief it.
See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART. Naadubon’s request for the appointment of counsel
is DENIED, because such appointment would conflict with this
country’s immigration policy. See Perez-Perez v. Hanberry,
781 F.2d 1477, 1480 (11th Cir. 1986).