Case Name: Timbu Philip ANJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-11
Citations: 123 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 04-2038
Parties: Timbu Philip ANJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
Timbu Philip ANJA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-2038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2005.
Decided March 11, 2005.
Theodore Nkwenti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Timbu Philip Anja, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). The order denied his motion to reopen and reconsider the Board's dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Anja contends that he established eligibility for asylum. As the IJ and Board concluded that the asylum application was untimely, we find that consideration of Anja's asylum claim is barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). Additionally, we have reviewed the evidence of record and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion to reopen and reconsider with respect to the relief of withholding of removal. See Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir.1999); Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.1999); INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987). Finally, we find that Anja's CAT claim, which was entirely undeveloped in his brief before this court, has been abandoned. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED