Case ID: f-appx_78/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph WOLETE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-1353.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 1, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 16, 2003.
    Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Senior Litigation, John M. McAdams, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Joseph Wolete, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Wolete challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances 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) (2003). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544 (6th Cir.2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3rd Cir.2003); Tsevegmid, v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18 (11th Cir.2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001); Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir.2001). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Wolete’s asylum claim.

Accordingly, we deny Wolete’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.