Leonnel Yonta v. Michael Mukasey, No. 08-1135 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1135 LEONNEL CEDRICK YONTA, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted: September 11, 2008 Decided: October 1, 2008 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOC., PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonnel Cedrick Yonta, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of his applications challenges the for finding relief that he from removal. failed to Yonta show first changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing of his asylum application. that we lack We have reviewed Yonta s claims and conclude jurisdiction to review them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Next, Yonta challenges the finding below that he failed to qualify for withholding of removal. To qualify for withholding of removal, probability a of petitioner persecution must show because that of he his faces race, a clear religion, nationality, membership in a 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)). Having conducted our review, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Yonta did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, we uphold the finding below that Yonta failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if removed to Cameroon. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). 2 Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
