Wijaya v. Gonzales , 123 F. App'x 136 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1629
HENDRA WIJAYA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-349-295)
Submitted: February 23, 2005 Decided: March 17, 2005
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony M. Briggs, Jr., Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre,
Jr., Senior Litigation Counsel, John L. Davis, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hendra Wijaya, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.*
In his petition for review, Wijaya contends that he
established his eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals,
however, that the Board found Wijaya’s asylum application untimely.
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack
jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2000). See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81
(7th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar,
we cannot review the underlying merits of Wijaya’s asylum claim.
While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of
Wijaya’s asylum claim, we can review denial of his request for
withholding of removal, which is not subject to the one-year time
limit on asylum claims. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (2004). “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
*
Wijaya raises no claims concerning the Board’s treatment of
his Convention Against Torture claim with this court. Therefore,
we deem the claim abandoned. See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356
F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999).
- 2 -
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)). Based on
our review of the record, we find that Wijaya has failed to meet
this standard.
We deny Wijaya’s 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 DENIED
- 3 -