UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2237
MINQIANG HUANG,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General; U.S.
IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-918-262)
Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Minqiang Huang, Petitioner Pro Se. Lindsay L. Chichester, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Minqiang Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of the order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We dismiss in part and deny in part
the petition for review.
Huang seeks to challenge the Board’s denial of asylum
based on its finding that he failed to timely file his application
within one year 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 and the Board’s denial of asylum pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006).
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the Board’s ruling
on the asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the denial
of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2006). “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 Cir. 2002)
(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). To obtain relief
under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must show “it is
- 2 -
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) (2006).
Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the
contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We accord broad,
though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported
by substantial evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004). We will uphold the final agency determination if
it is not “manifestly contrary to law.” Id. Based on our review
of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s determinations that Huang failed to meet his burden of
establishing eligibility for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,
and 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 materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
- 3 -