UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1959

NOELLA MBOLLE EJEDE EJEDE,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: May 23, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Irena I. Karpinski, LAW OFFICES OF IRENA I. KARPINSKI, 

Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Kohsei Ugumori, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Noella Mbolle Ejede Ejede, a native and citizen of 

Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the 

Immigration Judge’s order finding her asylum application to be 

untimely and denying relief from removal. We previously 

dismissed the petition for review in this matter without 

prejudice, and have granted Ejede’s motion to reopen her appeal. 

We now dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Ejede challenges the finding below that she failed to 

establish eligibility for asylum. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) 

(2006), the Attorney General’s decision regarding whether an 

alien has complied with the one-year time limit for filing an 

application for asylum or established changed or extraordinary 

circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not 

reviewable by any court. See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 

358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Because Ejede’s asylum application was 

found to be untimely by the agency, we lack jurisdiction to 

review the merits of her asylum claim. 

Next, Ejede disputes the conclusion that she failed to 

qualify for the relief of withholding of removal. “Withholding 

of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) if the alien 

shows that it is more likely than not that her life or freedom 

would be threatened in the country of removal because of her 
3

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (citations 

omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2006). Based on our review 

of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the agency’s finding that Ejede failed to meet her burden of 

proof. Because the evidence does not compel us to conclude to 

the contrary, we uphold the denial of relief. See Djadjou v. 

Holder, 662 F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. 

Ct. 788 (2012). Finally, we uphold the finding below that Ejede 

did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she 

would be tortured if removed to Cameroon so as to qualify for 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the 

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART