Rositha Offelia v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 10th Cir. 2003

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2279
ROSITHA OFFELIA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-611-603)
Submitted: June 18, 2004 Decided: July 6, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation Counsel, William C.
Minick, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rositha Offelia, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).
The order affirmed, without opinion, the immigration judge’s ruling
denying Offelia’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the
reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.
Offelia first challenges the immigration judge’s finding
that her asylum application was untimely with no showing of changed
or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2004).
We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336
F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 2003); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d
1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen.,
278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2002); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d
851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).
Offelia next challenges the immigration judge’s finding
that she failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for
withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Based on our review of the record and the immigration
judge’s decision, we find that the immigration judge did not err in
finding that Offelia failed to show that it is “more likely than
not” that she would face torture if returned to Haiti, or show a

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
“clear probability of persecution.” See 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c)(2)
(2004) (stating that to qualify for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, an alien must show that “it is more likely than
not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed
country of removal”); Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir.
2002) (“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.”).
Accordingly, we deny Offelia’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 --