UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2190
LUIS JAVIER LOPEZ; CLAUDIA PATRICIA ORTEGA-AGUIRRE; DAVID
LOPEZ; SABASTIAN LOPEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 1, 2008 Decided: November 10, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christine Lockhart Poarch, THE POARCH LAW FIRM, PC, Salem,
Virginia, for Petitioners. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Jeffrey
L. Menkin, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luis Javier Lopez (“Lopez”), his wife Claudia Patricia
Ortega-Aguirre, and his children David and Sabastian Lopez, natives
and citizens of Columbia, petition for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), dismissing the appeal from
the immigration judge’s order denying Lopez’s applications for
asylum, withholding from removal and withholding under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Lopez was the primary
applicant and his application was denied because it was filed more
than one year after Lopez entered the United States and he did not
establish circumstances warranting an extension of the one year
period. It was also found Lopez was not eligible for asylum relief
and withholding from removal because he contributed to a terrorist
organization. Furthermore, he failed to show a nexus between a
protected ground and his fear of persecution. We deny the petition
for review.
Insofar as Lopez challenges the finding that the asylum
application was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006), even in
light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
13, 119 Stat. 231. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-
48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Lopez’s attempt to make his
challenge a question of law is without merit.
2
Lopez also contends the immigration judge erred in
denying his 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)); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1251(b)(3) (2008). Based on our review of the record, we find
Lopez failed to make the requisite showing that there was a nexus
between a protected ground and his fear of persecution.* We
therefore uphold the denial of his request for withholding of
removal.
We also find there was no error with the Board’s and the
immigration judge’s decision to deny relief under the Convention
Against Torture.
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
*
Lopez’s claim that the immigration judge erred by finding
that his payments to a terrorist organization prevented him from
being eligible for asylum or withholding of removal is not relevant
because Lopez was not otherwise eligible for either form of relief.
3