Abdullahi v. Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1627
ISMAIL MOHAMOUD ABDULLAHI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-479-740)
Submitted: November 8, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Edward Wilhelm, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES A. ROBERTS, Falls
Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant
Attorney General, Margaret J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel,
Jennifer L. Lightbody, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ismail Mohamoud Abdullahi, a native and citizen of
Somalia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“Board”) order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying
asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture. For the reasons discussed below, we
deny the petition for review.
The decision to grant or deny asylum relief is conclusive
“unless manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2000). We have reviewed the immigration
judge’s decision and the administrative record. We are without
jurisdiction to review the decision that the application for asylum
was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000); see also
Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir. 2003);
Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d Cir. 2003);
Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003). We
further find no due process violation as a result of the Board’s
affirmance under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(5) (2004). In addition,
Abdullahi failed to establish review was warranted by a three judge
panel under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6). Finally, we find the denial of
withholding from removal was supported by substantial evidence.*
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
*
Abdullahi abandoned his challenge to the Board’s denial of
his application for withholding under the Convention Against
Torture.
- 2 -
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 -