UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1479

KOUAMI DOUNOU; AFANDJI DOUNOU, 

 Petitioners, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Mina Bahgat, FAYAD & ASSOCIATES, INC., Richmond, Virginia, for 

Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, 

Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Kouami Dounou (“Dounou”) and his wife, Afandji Dounou, 

(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Togo, 

petition for review of two separate orders of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeals from the 

immigration judge’s decisions denying their requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture. Dounou is the primary applicant for asylum; 

the claims of his wife are derivative of his application. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) (2006); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2008). 

 In their petition for review, the Petitioners first 

argue that they established extraordinary circumstances to 

excuse Dounou’s failure to file his asylum application within 

one year of his arrival. We lack jurisdiction to review this 

claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006). See Almuhtaseb 

v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting 

cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we also cannot review 

the underlying merits of the Petitioners’ asylum claims. 

 The Petitioners also contend that the immigration 

judge erred in denying their request for withholding of removal. 

“To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show 

that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his 

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324 

2 
3 

n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 

(1984)); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2008). Based on our review 

of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite 

showing before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the 

denial of their request for withholding of removal. 

 Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART

 *

 The Petitioners fail to raise any specific issues 

regarding the denial of their request for protection under the 

Convention Against Torture in their brief before this court and 

have therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain 

. . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with 

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which 

the appellant relies.”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 

231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the 

specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular 

claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”); see also

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).