Shaileshkumar Murani v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 332 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1736
SHAILESHKUMAR MANSURALI MURANI; SUNITAKUMARI SAILESHKUMAR
MURANI; R.S.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 20, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013
Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Janeen Hicks Pierre, RAWLS, SCHEER, FOSTER & MINGO, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery,
Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Duffy, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Charles S. Greene, III,, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Shaileshkumar Mansurali Murani (“Murani”), his wife,
and minor child (collectively “Petitioners”), natives and
citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from
the immigration judge’s denial of Murani’s requests for asylum
and withholding of removal.
We first note that the agency denied Murani’s request
for asylum on the ground that he failed to file his asylum
application within one year of his arrival in the United States,
and failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse
the late filing of his application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)
(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2013). We lack jurisdiction to
review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2012), and find that the Petitioners have failed to raise a
constitutional claim or question of law that would fall under
the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). 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.
The Petitioners also contend that the agency erred in
denying Murani’s request for withholding of removal.
“Withholding of removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)
2
if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that [his]
life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal
because of [his] 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) (2012).
An alien “must show a ‘clear probability of persecution’ on
account of a protected ground.” Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d
265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407,
430 (1984)), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 788 (2012). Based on our
review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the finding that Murani failed to establish either past
persecution or a clear probability of future persecution in
India at the hands of his in-laws.
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 this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
3