Sviatlana Davydzenka v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 439 F. App'x 251 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1902
SVIATLANA DAVYDZENKA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals
Submitted: June 20, 2011 Decided: July 18, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part, and denied in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Joshua Bardavid, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Briena L. Strippoli, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sviatlana Davydzenka, a native and citizen of Belarus,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of her applications for relief from removal.
Davydzenka first disputes the Board’s finding that her
asylum application was not timely filed and that no exceptions
applied to excuse the untimeliness. We have reviewed
Davydzenka’s claims in this regard and find that we do not have
jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 444-46 (4th
Cir. 2011); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1048 (2010).
Next, Davydzenka challenges the Board’s finding that
she failed to qualify for withholding of removal. “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)). We
have reviewed the record and Davydzenka’s contentions and
conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding below
that Davydzenka did not meet her burden to qualify for this
relief. Finally, we uphold the agency determination that
2
Davydzenka failed to qualify for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2011).
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AND DENIED IN PART
3