UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1972
RAFAT EQAB FAYEZ HELA OMAR; RANIA MOHAMMAD FARHAN OMAR; A.
F. E. F. OMAR; L. R. E. F. OMAR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: July 10, 2012 Decided: August 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
David E. Piver, THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID E. PIVER, Wayne,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Benjamin Mark
Moss, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rafat Eqab Fayez Hela Omar (“Rafat Omar”), his wife,
Rania Mohammad Farhan Omar, and their minor children, A.F.E.F.
and L.R.E.F., (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens
of Jordan, petition for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture.
In their brief on appeal, the Petitioners argue that
Rafat Omar filed his asylum application within a reasonable time
after learning of his father-in-law’s death, and the agency
therefore should have deemed his asylum application timely under
the changed circumstances exception to the one-year
deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (2006). We lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006), and find that the Petitioners have failed
to raise a constitutional claim or colorable question of law
that would fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006). See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-
59 (4th Cir. 2009). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot
review the underlying merits of their asylum claims.
Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the petition for review.
2
The Petitioners also contend that the agency erred in
denying their applications for withholding of removal.
“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that [his or]
her life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of [his or] her race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.” Gomis, 571 F.3d at 359 (citations omitted); see 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2006). Based on our review of the record,
we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of
relief. We therefore deny this portion of the petition for
review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Omar
(B.I.A. Aug. 11, 2011).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in
part and deny the petition for review in part. * 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
*
The Petitioners have failed to raise any challenges to the
denial of their request for protection under the Convention
Against Torture. They have therefore waived appellate review of
this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004).
3