UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1823
GUSTAVO ADOLFO ZAMBRANO HERRERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 26, 2009 Decided: July 15, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Alexander N. Agiliga, Largo, Maryland, for Petitioner. Michael
F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron,
Assistant Director, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gustavo Adolfo Zambrano Herrera, a native and citizen
of Venezuela, seeks review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the decision
of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying relief from removal. In
his petition for review, Zambrano Herrera first argues that he
qualified for asylum. We note that the Board expressly affirmed
the IJ’s finding that Zambrano Herrera’s asylum application was
not timely filed and that no exceptions applied to excuse the
untimeliness. As Zambrano Herrera does not meaningfully
challenge the Board’s finding that his asylum application was
untimely, we conclude that he has waived this claim on appeal.
See Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007)
(noting that finding of untimeliness was waived on appeal, and
if not court would lack jurisdiction to review it). We
therefore may not review Zambrano Herrera’s claim that he is
eligible for asylum.
Zambrano Herrera next challenges the Board’s finding
that he failed to qualify 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)).
2
Based on our review of the record, we find that substantial
evidence supports the finding that Zambrano Herrera did not
establish eligibility for withholding of removal. Finally, we
uphold the finding below that Zambrano Herrera failed to show
that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if
removed to Venezuela. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009).
Accordingly, 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.
DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3