Akpojiyovwi v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60506
Summary Calendar
EME AKPOJIYOVWI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 999 163
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eme Akpojiyovwi petitions this court for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in which the BIA
dismissed her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision
denying her claims for asylum, the withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Akpojiyovwi’s
claim for relief is based on her assertion that she is certain that
her adolescent daughters will be subjected to female circumcision,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), if she is deported and returns
with them to Nigeria.
The BIA found Akpojiyovwi’s claim for asylum to be time-
barred, and it rejected her claims that an exception to the time-
bar was warranted. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), this court
does not have jurisdiction to review Akpojiyovwi’s assertion that
her asylum claim was not time-barred. See Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382
F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir. 2004); Khan v. Gonzales, 172 F. App’x 575,
576 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Akpojiyovwi’s claim for asylum
is DISMISSED.
Akpojiyovwi also challenges the denial of her claims for
the withholding of removal and relief under the CAT. She asserts
that the likelihood that her daughters will be subject to FGM is
relevant to her own claim for asylum under a theory of “derivative
persecution.” Alternatively, she argues that she is entitled to
“derivative asylum” because her children will be “constructively
removed” if she is denied relief. Even if this court were to
conclude that Akpojiyovwi is entitled to claim relief from the
order of deportation based on the threat of persecution to her
daughters, substantial evidence supports the determination that
Akpojiyovwi failed to show the requisite likelihood that her
daughters will be subject to FGM upon their return to Nigeria. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1); Convention Against Torture, article 3.
Accordingly, Akpojiyovwi’s petition for review as to these claims
is DENIED.
2
The appellate brief is not in compliance with FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9)(A), which requires citation to the record. We caution
Akpojiyovwi’s counsel that failure to comply with this court’s
rules of appellate procedure could result in the imposition of
sanctions.
3