Rozario v. Holder , 314 F. App'x 570 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1505
CHRISTOPHER ROZARIO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 11, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul
Fiorino, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Rozario, a native and citizen of
Bangladesh, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Rozario first challenges
the determination that he failed to establish his eligibility
for asylum. He also claims that he established changed
circumstances in Bangladesh to excuse his failure to file his
asylum application within one year of his arrival in the United
States. We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that
Rozario’s application was untimely filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006). See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743,
747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
Rozario’s asylum claims.
Rozario also contends that the immigration judge erred
in denying his request for withholding of removal. “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
2
Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2008). Based on our review of the
record, we find that substantial evidence supports the finding
that Rozario failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of his
request for withholding of removal.
Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports
the Board’s finding that Rozario failed to meet the standard for
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.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008).
Additionally, the petitioner must show that he or she will be
subject to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental
. . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2008); see
Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). We
find that Rozario failed to make the requisite showing before
the Board.
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny 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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
4