Dekanosidze

Dekanosidze v. Gonzales

Good Law
125 F. App'x 200
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 11, 2005No. 04-70105; Agency Nos. A75-710-092, A75-710-093California365 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Zurab and Guliko Dekanosidze, natives and citizens of Georgia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have partial jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s determination that the Dekanosidzes’ asylum claim was untimely. We lack jurisdiction to review this determination and do not consider the merits of their asylum claim. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir.2001); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding because the Dekanosidzes did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that they would be subject to persecution on a protected ground if they returned to Georgia. See INS v. Stevie, 467 U.S. 407, 429-30 , 104 S.Ct. 2489 , 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984).

The Dekanosidzes’ challenge to the BIA’s adoption of the IJ’s opinion with respect to their claim for withholding of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.