UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2049

IBRAHIMA MOUNTAGA, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

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

Appeals. 

Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: August 7, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion. 

Peter T. Ndikum, IMMIGRATION ASSISTANCE CENTER, Silver Spring, 

Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant 

Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Lyle 

D. Jentzer, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Ibrahima Mountaga, a native and citizen of Mali, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of 

his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. 

We cannot review the Board’s denial of Mountaga’s 

asylum claim because the immigration judge concluded that 

Mountaga failed to file his asylum application within one year 

of the date of his arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2006). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to 

review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1158(a)(3)(2006). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 

(7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases); see also Vasile v. Gonzales, 

417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that even in light of 

the REAL ID Act of 2005, this “factual determination[] 

continue[s] to fall outside the jurisdiction of the court of 

appeals entertaining a petition for review”). 

Although we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s 

ruling on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider 

the denial of withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) 

(2008). “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 

2 
particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 

296 F.3d 316, 324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 

467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Mountaga challenges the immigration 

judge’s determination that his testimony was not credible, and 

that he otherwise failed to meet his burden of proof for 

withholding of removal. Administrative findings of fact are 

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled 

to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006). We 

accord broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility 

findings supported by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We will uphold the final 

agency determination if it is not “manifestly contrary to law.” 

Id. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that 

Mountaga failed to present a credible claim for withholding of 

removal. 

Finally, as Mountaga makes no argument in his opening 

brief regarding the disposition of his claim for protection 

under the Convention Against Torture, we conclude that he has 

waived this issue. See Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 

(4th Cir. 2001) (failure to challenge denial of relief under the 

Convention Against Torture in opening brief constitutes 

abandonment of that issue); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that failure to 

3 
4 

raise a specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment 

of that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A), requiring that 

the argument section of the opening brief contain contentions, 

reasoning, and authority). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as to 

Mountaga’s asylum claim and deny the remainder of the petition. 

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