
    Kedija ALI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-1660.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 13, 2004.
    Decided Jan. 5, 2005.
    
      Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney' General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not bindings precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Kedija Ali, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Ali challenges the immigration judge’s finding that her asylum application was untimely because she failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that she filed her application within one year of the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review this claim pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir.2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of Ali’s asylum claim.

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Ali’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of her request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he faces a clear probability of persecution because of his race, 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, 104 S.Ct. 2489, 81 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984)). Based on our review of the record, we find Ali failed to meet this standard.

Accordingly, we deny Ali’s 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 
      
       Ali does not challenge the denial of withholding under the Convention Against Torture.
     