Huang v. Mukasey , 257 F. App'x 673 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1543
XIA LIAN HUANG,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A96-346-300)
Submitted: November 21, 2007 Decided: December 11, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Xia Lian Huang, Petitioner Pro Se. Javier E. Balasquide, Chief
Counsel, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Arlington, Virginia;
Carol Federighi, Daniel Eric Goldman, Tyrone Sojourner, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; George William
Maugans, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Xia Lian Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision, which denied her requests for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture.
In her petition for review, Huang argues that the Board
and immigration judge erred in concluding that her asylum
application was time-barred. We lack jurisdiction to review this
determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in
light of the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743,
747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases); see also Niang v.
Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of
Huang’s asylum claim.
Huang also contends that the Board and the immigration
judge erred in denying her request for withholding of removal. “To
qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must show that
[s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of h[er]
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));
- 2 -
see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2007). Based on our review of the
record, we find that Huang failed to make the requisite showing
before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of
her request for withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
*
In her brief before this court, Huang has failed to raise any
challenges to the denial of her request for protection under the
Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that she has waived
appellate review of this claim. See Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004).
- 3 -