UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1426
MOHAMED FARSAN PAKEER MOHAMED,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 27, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Elizaveta Krukova, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony
West, Assistant Attorney General, Lyle D. Jentzer, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Zoe J. Heller, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mohamed Farsan Pakeer Mohamed, a native and citizen of
Sri Lanka, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal.
Mohamed first asserts that he qualified for asylum.
The Board found the asylum application to be untimely, and we do
not have jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2006); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353,
358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). Because the Board’s finding of
untimeliness is dispositive of Mohamed’s asylum claim, we may
not review Mohamed’s contention that he established eligibility
for relief.
Next, Mohamed 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)). We
have reviewed the record and Mohamed’s contentions and conclude
that substantial evidence supports the finding below that
Mohamed did not meet his burden to qualify for this relief.
2
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.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3