Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure * 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey as respondent in this case. 08 -41 23 -ag Okom bi v. Hold er BI A A bra m s IJ A 097 976 840 

### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

Rul ing s b y s ummaryor derdo no t h ave pr ece den tia l e ffe ct. Ci tat ionto a s ummaryor derfi led onoraf terJa nua ry 1, 200 7, is permit ted an d i s govern ed by Federa l R ule of Appel lat e P roc edu re 32. 1 a nd thi s c our t’s Loc al Rul e 3 2.1 .1. Wh en cit ing a sum mar y o rde r i n ado cum entfi led with this co urt , apa rtymu st cit e e ith er the Fe der al App end ix or an ele ctr oni c d atabas e ( with the not ati on “summa ry order” ). A p art y cit ing a sum mar y o rde r m

ustse rve a cop y o f i t o n a ny par ty not rep res ent ed by cou nse l. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 28 day of January, two thousand ten. th 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DENNIS JACOBS, 8 Chief Judge, 9 ROGER J. MINER, 10 GERARD E. LYNCH, 11 Circuit Judges . 12

______________________________________ 13 14 ELISABETH OKOMBI, 15 Petitioner , 16 17 v. 08-4123-ag 18 NAC 19 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL, * 21 Respondent . 22

______________________________________2 1 FOR PETITIONER: Pro se . 2 3 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney 4 General; Terri J. Scadron, Assistant 5 Director; Kristina R. Sracic, Trial 6 Attorney, Office of Immigration 7 Litigation, United States Department 8 of Justice, Washington, D.C. 9 1 0 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 1 1 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 1 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review 1 3 is DENIED. 1 4 Petitioner Elisabeth Okombi, a native and citizen of 1 5 the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a July 1 6 23, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 16, 2006 1 7 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams 1 8 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, 1 9 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In 20 re Elisabeth Okombi, No. A 097 976 840 (B.I.A. July 23, 2 1 2008), aff’gNo. A 097 976 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct. 2 2 16, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 2 3 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 2 4 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the 2 5 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen 26 v. Gonzales , 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The 2 7 applicable standards of review are well-established. See3 1 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder , 562 F.3d 2 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009). 3 As a preliminary matter, we are without jurisdiction to 4 consider Okombi’s challenge to the agency’s determination 5 that her application for asylum was time-barred. 8 U.S.C. 6 § 1158(a)(3) (“No Court shall have jurisdiction to review 7 any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph 8 (2).”); see also Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 453 9 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2006). While we retain jurisdiction 1 0 to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 11 see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Okombi’s brief raises no such 1 2 claims. 1 3 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of 1 4 Okombi’s claim for withholding of removal. The IJ found 1 5 that, even assuming she suffered past persecution, she did 1 6 not have an objectively reasonable fear of future 1 7 persecution because the civil war in Congo is over and the 1 8 group that allegedly persecuted her, the Cobras, no longer 1 9 exists. The IJ also found that the current Congolese 2 0 government gained power “through a democratic process of 2 1 being elected,” and found “nothing indicating here that they 2 2 would be attacking her ethnic group or attacking [her] 2 3 political organization.” Even construing her pro se brief 2 4 broadly, Okombi does not challenge any of these findings.4 1 She asserts only that she should have been granted 2 withholding of removal because of past persecution. 3 Accordingly, we have no basis upon which to disturb the 4 agency’s burden of proof finding, and need not reach its 5 credibility determination. Okombi also does not challenge 6 the agency’s denial of her application for CAT relief. 7 Finally, Okombi argues that: (1) she was denied a fair 8 hearing due to repeated translation problems; and (2) the IJ 9 erred in denying her motion for a continuance so that she 1 0 could be examined by a doctor. However, we decline to 1 1 consider these unexhausted arguments. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. 12 Dep’t of Justice , 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). 1 3 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 1 4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of 1 5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition 1 6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in 1 7 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for 1 8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with 1 9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second 2 0 Circuit Local Rule 34(b). 2 1 FOR THE COURT: 2 2 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 23 24 25