
    Elizabeth GESSESE, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Respondent.
    No. 04-1581.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 19, 2004.
    Decided Dec. 14, 2004.
    
      Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, John S. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Gessese, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In her petition for review, Gessese contends that she established her eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals, however, that the Board and immigration judge denied asylum relief on the ground that Gessese failed to demonstrate 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 that we lack jurisdiction to review this determination 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 Gessese’s asylum claim.

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of Gessese’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial of her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. U.S. 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)). To qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of demonstrating that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Based on our review of the record, we find that Gessese has failed to meet these standards.

Accordingly, we deny Gessese’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  