Bashkim Bajraktari v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 547 F. App'x 329 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-1562
    BASHKIM BAJRAKTARI,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals.
    Submitted:   November 18, 2013              Decided:   December 5, 2013
    Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Andrew P. Johnson, LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. JOHNSON, New York,
    New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
    General, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Senior Litigation Counsel,
    Anthony J. Messuri, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Bashkim Bajraktari, a native and citizen of Albania,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order
    denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture.                              We dismiss in
    part and deny in part the petition for review.
    Bajraktari     challenges            the       finding    below     that      no
    exception applied to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum
    application.      Under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(3) (2012), the Attorney
    General’s decision regarding whether an alien has complied with
    the one-year time limit for filing an application for asylum or
    established     changed      or    extraordinary             circumstances       justifying
    waiver   of    that   time    limit      is       not     reviewable     by     any     court.
    Gomis v. Holder, 
    571 F.3d 353
    , 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).                             Although
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(D)          (2012)          provides       that     nothing     in
    § 1252(a)(2)(B),      (C),        “or   in        any     other     provision      of     this
    chapter . . . which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall
    be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or
    questions of law,” this court has held that the question of
    whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed
    or    extraordinary        circumstances                exception      applies        “is    a
    discretionary      determination         based          on   factual     circumstances.”
    Gomis, 
    571 F.3d at 358
     (emphasis omitted).                        Accordingly, “absent
    2
    a   colorable     constitutional           claim       or    question       of    law,       [the
    court’s]       review        of     the        issue        is     not      authorized         by
    § 1252(a)(2)(D).”            Id.        Because Bajraktari fails to raise any
    such   issues,        we    lack    jurisdiction            to    review    this      finding.
    We therefore     dismiss          the    petition      for       review    of    Bajraktari’s
    asylum claim.
    Next,        Bajraktari      disputes         the     conclusion        that     he
    failed   to    qualify       for    the    relief      of    withholding         of   removal.
    “Withholding of removal is available under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3)
    [(2012)] 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
     (internal quotation marks omitted); see 
    8 U.S.C. § 1231
    (b)(3).          We have reviewed the record and conclude that
    substantial     evidence          supports     the     agency’s      determination           that
    Bajraktari failed to demonstrate a clear probability of future
    persecution     on     account       of    a   protected          ground.        Because      the
    evidence does not compel us to conclude to the contrary, we
    uphold the denial of relief.                    See Djadjou v. Holder, 
    662 F.3d 265
    , 273 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 788
     (2012).
    Finally, we uphold the finding below that Bajraktari did not
    demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be
    tortured if removed to Albania so as to qualify for protection
    3
    under the Convention Against Torture.           
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (c)(2)
    (2013).
    We accordingly 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   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the
    decisional process.
    PETITION DISMISSED IN PART,
    DENIED IN PART
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1562

Citation Numbers: 547 F. App'x 329

Judges: Niemeyer, Davis, Floyd

Filed Date: 12/5/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024