1

The BIA adopted, affirmed, and added to the decision of the IJ. The BIA's

order, including the IJ's findings and reasoning adopted by the BIA, is the final

agency determination for purposes of judicial review. Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d

1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1860

___________

Victor Thulley, *

*

Petitioner, *

* On Petition for Review of an

v. * Order of the Board of

* Immigration Appeals.

Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General *

of the United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: June 23, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Thulley, a citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the decision of an immigration

judge (IJ) denying asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.1

 Having carefully reviewed the

record, we deny the petition.
2

Thulley asks us to follow the Sixth Circuit and hold that the Attorney

General's timeliness ruling may be reviewed for legal or constitutional error. A

similar request was made in Somakoko, 399 F.3d at 883. Like the Court in

Somakoko, "we need not decide the troubling question whether relief from an

untimeliness ruling may ever be granted" because, although Thulley alleged legal

errors, he failed to demonstrate that legal errors were made. Id.

3

Thulley's argument that the IJ erred in not subjecting his passport and other

documents to a forensic examination to determine authenticity is without merit.

Thulley submitted his documents to the IJ nearly ten months late and never requested

a forensic examination.

-2-

The IJ denied Thulley's application for asylum, concluding that Thulley failed

to present credible evidence to meet his burden of proving that he filed the

application within one year of arriving in the United States. We have no jurisdiction

to review the administrative determination that Thulley's application was untimely.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Somakoko v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 882, 883 (8th Cir.

2005).2

 

We review the BIA's denial of Thulley's requests for withholding of removal

and protection under the CAT to determine whether the decision is supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Hassan v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 661,

665 (8th Cir. 2004). We conclude that the BIA's finding that Thulley is not eligible

for withholding of removal because he failed to establish either past persecution or

a well-founded fear of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See

Al Tawm v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 740, 744 (8th Cir. 2004) (discussing standards for

withholding of removal); Gemechu v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 944, 947–48 (8th Cir. 2004)

(ruling that IJ's credibility findings are entitled to deference if they are supported by

a specific, cogent reason).3

 Similarly, we see no basis in the record for relief under

the CAT. See Habtemicael v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 774, 780–82 (8th Cir. 2004)

(discussing standards for relief under the CAT).
-3-

Finally, we have no jurisdiction to review the IJ's decision denying Thulley's

request for voluntary departure. See Fofanah, 447 F.3d at 1041.

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

______________________________