Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0366-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Getachew Teklu TEMESGEN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-2520.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 28, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 18, 2004.
    
      Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Margaret M. Newell, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Getachew Teklu Temesgen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The order adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s ruling denying Temesgen’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Temesgen challenges the Board’s finding 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). 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 (3d Cir.2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.2003); Fahim v. U.S. Atty. 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).

Accordingly, we deny Temesgen’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 
      
       Because Temesgen did not raise the issue of withholding of removal before the Board, the claim is waived. Farrokhi v. INS, 900 F.2d 697, 700 (4th Cir. 1990).