03-2097•Farahnaz Nournia Aboozar v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 7th Cir. 2004 collecting cases . Given this…
03-2097Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit14 de jan. de 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2097
FARAHNAZ NOURNIA ABOOZAR,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-415-634)
Submitted: December 20, 2004 Decided: January 14, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Richbourg, Memphis, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant
Director, R. Lynne Harris, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 4 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Farahnaz Nournia Aboozar, a native and citizen of Iran,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration
judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and cancellation of removal.
In her petition for review, Aboozar contends that she
established her eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals,
however, that the immigration judge denied asylum relief on the
grounds that (1) Aboozar failed to file her application within one
year of the date of her arrival in the United States, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000), and (2) Aboozar failed to establish any
“changed” or “extraordinary” circumstances that would excuse her
late filing, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (2000). We conclude that we
lack jurisdiction to review these determinations 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
Aboozar’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the immigration
judge’s denial of Aboozar’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to
consider the denial of her request for withholding of removal. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of
removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear
-- 2 of 4 --
*We find that Aboozar’s claim that former counsel rendered
ineffective assistance is waived on the ground that she failed to
present this claim before the Board. See Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d
697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990) (“[A]n alien who has failed to raise
claims during an appeal to the [Board] has waived his right to
raise those claims before a federal court on appeal of the
[Board]’s decision.”). Additionally, Aboozar attempts to raise a
claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We find
that this claim is also waived as she failed to seek such relief
before the immigration judge.
- 3 -
probability of persecution because of h[er] 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)). Based on our
review of the record, we find that Aboozar has failed to meet this
standard.
Finally, Aboozar challenges the immigration judge’s
finding that she failed to qualify for cancellation of removal
because she did not establish that her removal would result in
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her parents, who
are lawful permanent residents of the United States. See 8
U.S.C.A. § 1229b(b)(1) (West Supp. 2004). Because the immigration
judge’s hardship determination is discretionary in nature, we lack
jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000); Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d
176, 179 (3d Cir. 2003); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887,
888 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny Aboozar’s petition for
review.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
-- 3 of 4 --
- 4 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
-- 4 of 4 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.