Mafor v. Holder , 351 F. App'x 805 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1241
AWUNTI SUZANE MAFOR, a/k/a Susana Mafor Awunti,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, Maureen J. Johnson, BEACH-OSWALD
IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L.
Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Achiezer Guggenheim,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Awunti Suzane Mafor, a native and citizen of Cameroon,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration
judge’s decision denying her requests for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the
reasons set forth below, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Mafor 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 in a particular
social group, or political opinion.” Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d
353, 359 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3091(Aug. 11, 2009) (No. 09-194); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2009).
Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial
evidence supports the finding that Mafor failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore
uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal.
Additionally, we find that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Mafor failed to meet the standard for
2
relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such
relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than
not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We find
that Mafor failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court.
Finally, Mafor claims that (1) the Board failed to
consider whether she would be persecuted in Cameroon based on
her membership in a social group; and (2) the overseas
investigation breached her confidentiality in violation of 8
C.F.R. § 208.6 (2009). We lack jurisdiction over these claims
because Mafor failed to raise them before the Board. See 8
U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order of
removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Massis v.
Mukasey, 549 F.3d 631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the
court lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not
raised before the Board and providing no exception for manifest
injustice). We therefore dismiss the petition for review as to
these claims.
Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
4