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.

08-4123-ag

Okombi v. Holder

BIA

Abrams IJ

A 097 976 840

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to

a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is

governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s

Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed

with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an

electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party

citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not

represented by counsel.

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

10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

11 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

12 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that the petition for review

13 is DENIED.

14 Petitioner Elisabeth Okombi, a native and citizen of

15 the Democratic Republic of the Congo, seeks review of a July

16 23, 2008 order of the BIA affirming the October 16, 2006

17 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Steven R. Abrams

18 denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal,

19 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In

20 re Elisabeth Okombi, No. A 097 976 840 (B.I.A. July 23,

21 2008), aff’g No. A 097 976 840 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Oct.

22 16, 2006). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the

23 underlying facts and procedural history in this case. 

24 Under the circumstances of this case, we review the

25 decision of the IJ as supplemented by the BIA. See Yan Chen

26 v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268, 271 (2d Cir. 2005). The

27 applicable standards of review are well-established. See 
3

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

10 to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law,”

11 see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Okombi’s brief raises no such

12 claims.

13 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of

14 Okombi’s claim for withholding of removal. The IJ found

15 that, even assuming she suffered past persecution, she did

16 not have an objectively reasonable fear of future

17 persecution because the civil war in Congo is over and the

18 group that allegedly persecuted her, the Cobras, no longer

19 exists. The IJ also found that the current Congolese

20 government gained power “through a democratic process of

21 being elected,” and found “nothing indicating here that they

22 would be attacking her ethnic group or attacking [her]

23 political organization.” Even construing her pro se brief

24 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

10 could be examined by a doctor. However, we decline to

11 consider these unexhausted arguments. See Lin Zhong v. U.S.

12 Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2007). 

13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

14 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of

15 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition

16 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in

17 this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for

18 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with

19 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second

20 Circuit Local Rule 34(b).

21 FOR THE COURT: 

22 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

23

24

25