Affoue Mamousso Kourouma v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 4th Cir. 2001 . - 2 - PER CURIAM: Affoue Mamousso Kourouma, a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2095
AFFOUE MAMOUSSO KOUROUMA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A98-320-872)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 23, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Gregory M. Kelch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

*Kourouma does not challenge in this appeal the denial of
protection under the Convention Against Torture, and therefore has
abandoned that claim. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th Cir.
2001).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Affoue Mamousso Kourouma, a native and citizen of the
Ivory Coast, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the decision of the
immigration judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.*
Kourouma seeks to challenge the immigration judge’s
finding that she failed to file her asylum application within one
year of the date of her arrival in the United States, or to
establish changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing timely
filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (C) (2000). We conclude
that 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). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
Kourouma’s asylum claim.
We retain jurisdiction, however, to consider the denial
of Kourouma’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2006). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a
petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of
persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality,

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
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)). Based on our review of the
record, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s
holding that Kourouma failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, we deny 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.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --