Destaw v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2094
HANNA DESTAW,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 24, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Hanna Destaw, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel Eric Goldman, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Eric Warren Marsteller, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hanna Destaw, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Destaw first argues that she established extraordinary
circumstances to excuse her failure to file her asylum
application within one year of her arrival in the United States.
We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), and find that Destaw has failed to
raise a constitutional claim or question of law that would fall
under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)
(2006). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1040 (2010). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
Destaw’s asylum claim. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of
her petition for review.
Destaw also contends that the Board and the
immigration judge erred in denying her request for withholding
of removal. “Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of her race, religion, nationality, membership
2
in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Gomis, 571
F.3d at 359; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2009). Based on our
review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports
the denial of Destaw’s request for withholding of removal. *
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in
part and deny the petition for review in part. 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
*
Destaw has failed to raise any challenges to the denial of
her request for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
She has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See
Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004)
(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief
results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
3