Bоkole Elongo Mompongo (Mompongo), a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), рetitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) deсision denying Mompongo’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss Mompongo’s asylum claim, because we lack jurisdiction to review the decision that the asylum application was untimely. On the merits of Mompongo’s requests for. withholding of removal and CAT protection, we deny Mompongo’s рetition.
I. BACKGROUND
Mompongo arrived in the United States from the DRC, formerly Zaire, on March 12, 1997, on a temporary work visa that authorized him to remain in the United States until June 30, 1999. He overstayed his visa, and, on February 21, 2001, Mom-pongo applied for asylum. The Immigration and Naturalization Service commenced removal proceedings on August 14, 2001.
At an initial hearing, Mompongo admitted the factual allegations contained in the notice to appear; conceded removability; and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The IJ held an evidentiary hearing, during which Mompongo рresented no witnesses other than himself. Mompongo testified he fears persecution if he returns to the DRC, becausе of his family’s associations with the former Mobutu regime, and because of his participation in the youth wing of the Mobutu pаrty.
The IJ concluded Mompongo failed to file his application for asylum within one year of his arrival in the United Statеs, and no changed or exceptional circumstances justified an exception to the one-year requirement. Therefore, the IJ denied as untimely Mompongo’s asylum application. The IJ also denied Mompongo’s clаims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, but granted his request for voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed without opinion. Therеfore, for purposes of judicial review, the IJ’s decision constitutes the final agency determination.
See Aden v. Ashcroft,
II. DISCUSSION
Mompongо first challenges the IJ’s determination that Mompongo failed to demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstаnces excusing the late filing of his asylum application. To qualify for asylum, an alien must “demonstrate[ ] by clear and cоnvincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s arrival in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). This provision, however, does not apply if the applicant
Pursuant to section 1158(a)(2)(B), the IJ deniеd as untimely Mompongo’s application for asylum. The IJ explained that Mompongo filed his application mоre than one year after arriving in the United States, and the IJ found no changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delayed filing. The IJ’s decision is not subject to judicial review.
See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3);
Aden,
Although we lack jurisdiction to review Mompongo’s сlaim for asylum, we do have jurisdiction to review the denial of Mompongo’s requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT.
See Ngure,
The IJ determined Mompongо failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be harmed should he return to the DRC. The IJ found Mompongo’s testimony credible and recognized the fall of the Mobutu government, to which Mom-pongo’s family was well-connected, resulted in political unrest, civil unrest, and “the prospect of lower living standards. under the new government” for family members of principal figures in thе Mobutu administration. However, the IJ concluded Mom-pongo’s family connections, including a cousin who was a member of the Mobutu bodyguard and another cousin who worked as a Mobutu journalist and now works for a rebel group, fail to establish it is more likely than not Mompongo would be harmed if he returned to the DRC. Also considering the current conditions in the DRC, the IJ found it unlikely Mompongo, as a relative of Mobutu supporters, would face a clear probability of harm.
We conclude substantial evidence supports the IJ’s findings.
See Ngure,
III. CONCLUSION
We deny Mompongo’s petition for judicial review.