Ndikum v. Gonzales , 213 F. App'x 197 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1223
BRIDGET L. NDIKUM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-160-383)
Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 22, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, James A. Frederick, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bridget L. Ndikum, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration judge’s decision is
the final agency determination. See Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d
361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).
Ndikum seeks to challenge the Board’s factual finding
that she failed to file her asylum application within one year of
the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi
v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004) (collecting
cases); see also Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir.
2005) (holding that even after the REAL ID Act of 2005, these
“factual determinations continue to fall outside the jurisdiction
of the court of appeals entertaining a petition for review”).
Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the Board’s denial
of Ndikum’s asylum claim.
We have jurisdiction to consider the denial of
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against
- 2 -
Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2006). “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)). Petitioner
challenges the immigration judge’s determination that her testimony
was not credible, and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden
of proof for withholding of removal. Administrative findings of
fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2000). We accord broad, though not unlimited, deference to
credibility findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara,
378 F.3d at 367. We will uphold the final agency determination if
it is not “manifestly contrary to law.” Id.Based on our review of the record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s
determination, upheld by the Board, that Ndikum failed to present
a credible claim for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the
immigration judge correctly concluded Ndikum could not establish
her entitlement to withholding of removal. Similarly, Ndikum
failed to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against
Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must show that “it is
more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to
- 3 -
the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2006).
Ndikum failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration
judge.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as to
Ndikum’s asylum claim, and deny the petition as to the remaining
claims. 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;
DENIED IN PART
- 4 -