UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1180
JAIRO ENRIQUE RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 29, 2012 Decided: October 17, 2012
Before KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Janeen Jihan Hicks Pierre, RAWLS, SCHEER, FOSTER and MINGO,
PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans,
Assistant Director, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jairo Enrique Rivera, a native and citizen of
Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for relief
from removal.
Rivera first disputes the agency’s denial of his
asylum application. The IJ found the asylum application to be
untimely, and the Board expressly found that Rivera waived
review of his asylum claim on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)
(2006). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part
with respect to this claim.
Next, Rivera 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 administrative record and find that
substantial evidence supports the finding below that Rivera did
not meet his burden to qualify for this relief.
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
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