UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2297
RAVINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-253-022)
Submitted: August 28, 2006 Decided: September 13, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Roberts, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, John Giordano, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ravinder Singh, a native and citizen of Afghanistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the immigration judge’s
decision denying his requests for asylum and withholding of
removal.
In his petition for review, Singh contends that the Board
and immigration judge erred in finding that he failed to meet his
burden of establishing his eligibility for asylum. The record
reveals, however, that the asylum application was denied on the
ground that Singh failed to demonstrate that he filed his
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 lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in light of the recent passage of the
REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See
Chen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 150-54 (2d
Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar and
the fact that the timeliness determination was dispositive of
Singh’s application for asylum, we cannot review the underlying
merits of his asylum claim.
Singh also contends that the Board and immigration judge
erred in denying his request for withholding of removal. “To
qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that he
- 2 -
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 find that Singh failed to make the
requisite showing before the immigration court. We therefore
uphold the denial of his request for withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the 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
- 3 -