UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2006
LI RONG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-2086
LI RONG LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 2, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Wong, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G.
Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Carol Federighi, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg, Office of Immigration
Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Li Rong Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision, which
denied her request for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Liu does not challenge the Board’s adoption of the
immigration judge’s finding that she failed to show that her asylum
application was timely filed. Furthermore, she has raised no
specific claim regarding the Convention Against Torture.
Therefore, these claims are abandoned. Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding failure
to raise specific issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of
that issue under Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A).
Liu also contends the Board and the immigration judge
erred in denying her 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 Cir.
2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2007). Based on our review of the record, we
find that Liu failed to make the requisite showing. We therefore
uphold the denial of her request for withholding of removal.
- 3 -
Accordingly, we deny Liu’s 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
- 4 -