Shah v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1733
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ALI SHAH,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A79-238-887)
Submitted: March 16, 2007 Decided: April 16, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie
McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kelly J. Walls, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Hussain Ali Shah, a native and citizen of
Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals adopting the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order
denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
“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)).
To establish eligibility for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating
that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured
if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). Having conducted our review, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the finding that Shah failed to
meet these standards.
Further, we find that the IJ did not abuse her discretion
in denying Shah’s request for a continuance. See Onyeme v. INS,
146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). Finally, we reject Shah’s equal
protection challenge to the NSEERS program. See Kandamar v.
Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2006); Ahmed v. Gonzales,
447 F.3d 433, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d
- 2 -
678, 681 n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d
1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006).
We accordingly 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
- 3 -