Jia Jia Wang v. Gonzales , 126 F. App'x 95 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2013
JIA JIA WANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-993-866)
Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Henry Zhang, ZHANG & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A.
Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul E. O’Brien, Office of
Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jia Jia Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
Wang first challenges the immigration judge’s finding
that his asylum application was untimely filed with no showing of
changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing the late filing.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5)
(2004). We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review this claim.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).
Wang next argues that the immigration judge violated his
due process rights by not raising the timeliness of his application
before rendering her decision. We have reviewed the administrative
record and conclude Wang did not exhaust his administrative
remedies with respect to this issue because he did not raise it in
his appeal to the Board. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000);
Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
While we do not have jurisdiction to consider the Board’s
denial of Wang’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider
the denial of his request for withholding of removal, which is not
subject to the one-year time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)
(2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must
- 2 -
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 (1984)).
Based on our review of the record, we conclude substantial evidence
supports the finding that Wang has failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part
and deny it in part.* 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 DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
*
We note that Wang asserts no specific allegation of error
committed below in denying relief under the Convention Against
Torture.
- 3 -