Filed: Jan. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1556 MOHAMED OSMAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-617-055) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Ass
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1556 MOHAMED OSMAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-617-055) Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1556
MOHAMED OSMAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-617-055)
Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 6, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Yacub, LAW OFFICE OF IVAN YACUB, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
Douglas E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan F. Potter,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mohamed Osman, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).
The Board order affirmed without opinion the results of the
immigration judge’s decision. We deny the petition for review.
Osman concedes that his 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), (D) (2000); 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2004). In any case, we lack
jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s finding that Osman’s
asylum application was untimely filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft,
377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th
Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Osman’s claim that this Court can
review the timeliness ruling as a habeas corpus claim, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (2000), lacks merit, as Osman has not applied for habeas
corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (2000). Further, this court
does not have jurisdiction to entertain a § 2241 application.
Dragenice v. Ridge,
389 F.3d 92, 100 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding
§ 2241 does not confer authority on the court of appeals to
entertain a habeas petition). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to
review the merits of Osman’s asylum claim.
We do, however, retain jurisdiction to consider the
denial of Osman’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2004). To be eligible for withholding of removal
- 2 -
under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2000), an alien must show that it
is more likely than not that, if he is removed to his native
country, his life or freedom would be threatened. Camara v.
Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). Based on our review
of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the
immigration judge’s finding that Osman has failed to meet this
standard.
Accordingly, we deny Osman’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 -