Tek Jong Tjie v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201, 205 1st Cir. 2003

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2222
TEK JONG TJIE,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-342-996)
Submitted: July 28, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Mei, LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD T. MEI, Bethesda, Maryland,
for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Earle B. Wilson, Senior Litigation Counsel, Virginia M. Lum, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Tek Jong Tjie, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”)
order affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge’s decision
finding that Tjie’s asylum application was untimely filed and
denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal.
For the following reasons, we deny Tjie’s petition for review.
Tjie claims the immigration judge erred in finding his
asylum application, filed through his spouse, was not timely filed,
and the Board likewise erred in affirming the immigration judge’s
ruling on this point. We may not review the immigration judge’s
and the Board’s determinations that an asylum applicant has failed
to file a timely application. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000),
the Attorney General’s decision regarding whether an alien has
complied with the one-year time limit or established extraordinary
or changed circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is
not reviewable by any court. Moreover, a number of other circuits
have held that this jurisdiction-stripping provision precludes
federal appellate court review. See Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d
201, 205 (1st Cir. 2003); Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533,
542-44 (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185
(3d Cir. 2003); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th
Cir. 2002); Fahim v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th
Cir. 2002); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
Tjie also contends the Board erred in affirming the
immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and the denial of
his withholding of removal claim. We have reviewed the immigration
judge’s decision and conclude that the reasonable adjudicator would
not be compelled to decide to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 325 n.14 (4th
Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, we deny Tjie’s 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 of 3 --