UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1241

AWUNTI SUZANE MAFOR, a/k/a Susana Mafor Awunti,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 21, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, Maureen J. Johnson, BEACH-OSWALD IMMIGRATION LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer L. Lightbody, Senior Litigation Counsel, Achiezer Guggenheim, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Awunti Suzane Mafor, a native and citizen of Cameroon,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration

judge’s decision denying her requests for withholding of removal

and protection under the Convention Against Torture. For the

reasons set forth below, we deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

Mafor contends that the Board and the immigration

judge erred in denying her request for withholding of removal.

“Withholding of removal is available under

(b)(3)

if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that her life

or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal because

of her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion.” Gomis v. Holder,

(4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed,

(Aug. 11, 2009) (No. 09-194); see

(b)(3) (2009).

Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial

evidence supports the finding that Mafor failed to make the

requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore

uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal.

Additionally, we find that substantial evidence

supports the finding that Mafor failed to meet the standard for

2 relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such

relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than

not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed

country of removal.”

(c)(2) (2009). We find

that Mafor failed to make the requisite showing before the

immigration court.

Finally, Mafor claims that (1) the Board failed to

consider whether she would be persecuted in Cameroon based on

her membership in a social group; and (2) the overseas

investigation breached her confidentiality in violation of

(2009). We lack jurisdiction over these claims

because Mafor failed to raise them before the Board. See

(d)(1) (2006) (“A court may review a final order of

removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative

remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Massis v.

Mukasey,

(4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the

court lacks jurisdiction to consider an argument that was not

raised before the Board and providing no exception for manifest

injustice). We therefore dismiss the petition for review as to

these claims.

Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART

4