Qin Lin v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2293
QIN LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: July 12, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Carmel A. Morgan,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Qin Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his
applications for relief from removal.
Lin first disputes the agency’s finding that his
asylum application was not timely filed. We have reviewed Lin’s
claims in this regard and conclude that we do not have
jurisdiction to review this determination. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, 445-46 (4th
Cir. 2011); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir.
2009). Because the Board’s finding of untimeliness is
dispositive of Lin’s asylum claim, we do not address his
contention that he established eligibility for asylum.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with
respect to this claim.
Next, Lin 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
2
substantial evidence supports the finding below that Lin did not
meet his burden to qualify for this relief. Finally, we uphold
the agency finding that Lin failed to qualify for protection
under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2012).
Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3