Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Girmay Negash FESSHAYE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60393
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 24, 2003.
    Scott D. Levy, Jonathan H. Lamb, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Girmay Negash Fesshaye, a native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum as untimely; denying withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”); and denying voluntary departure.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s determination that Fesshaye filed an untimely asylum application and failed to meet an exception for waiving the deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Skahzad v. Ashcroft, 51 Fed.Appx. 929 (5th Cir.2002) (unpublished).

The BIA’s dismissal of Fesshaye’s appeal from the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992); see also Berhane v. Ashcroft, 78 Fed.Appx. 339, 340-41 (5th Cir.2003) (unpublished).

Because Fesshaye has not briefed the denial of voluntary departure, that issue is abandoned. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.