Perdomo v. Mukasey , 286 F. App'x 104 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2198
OMAR PERDOMO,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 23, 2008 Decided: July 31, 2008
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yurika S. Cooper, IMMIGRATION LAW GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Omar Perdomo, his wife, and three minor children
(collectively “the Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Columbia,
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision, which denied their requests for asylum and withholding of
removal. Perdomo is the primary applicant; the claims of his wife
and children are derivative of his application. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(3) (2000); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2007).
In their petition for review, the Petitioners argue that
the Board and immigration judge erred in concluding that their
asylum application was time-barred. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000), “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any
determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2),” which
includes both the Attorney General’s decisions whether an alien has
complied with the one-year time limit and whether there are changed
or extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimeliness. Courts
of appeal have uniformly held this jurisdiction-stripping provision
precludes judicial review not only of all such determinations, but
also of the merits of the underlying asylum claim. See Chen v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting
cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the
Petitioners’ challenge to the finding that their asylum application
was untimely.
- 2 -
The Petitioners also contend the Board and the
immigration judge erred in denying their request 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));
see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) (2007). Based on our review of the
record, we find that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite
showing. We therefore uphold the denial of their request for
withholding of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the Petitioners’ 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 -