UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1856
HONG LIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-354-847)
Submitted: January 9, 2006 Decided: January 31, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Hong Lin, Petitioner Pro Se. James Arthur Hunolt, Michele Yvette
Francis Sarko, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Wanda Evans, Daniel Eric
Goldman, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Javier E. Balasquide, Chief Counsel,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington, Virginia, for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hong Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.* We deny his petition.
Lin seeks to challenge the Board’s finding that he failed
to file his asylum application within one year of the date of his
arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000).
We conclude 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
Lin’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling
on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial
of Lin’s request for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2005). “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
*
Lin has waived any challenge to the Board’s denial of relief
under the Convention Against Torture by failing to raise the issue
in his informal brief. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189
n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) (citing Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318, 326 (4th
Cir. 2001)); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
- 2 -
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 find
that substantial evidence supports the Board’s holding that Lin
failed to meet this standard.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also
deny Lin’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
- 3 -