Kam Hong Tham v. Mukasey , 303 F. App'x 159 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1187
KAM HONG THAM,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: August 6, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
H. Raymond Fasano, MADEO & FASANO, New York, New York, for
Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Richard Zanfardino, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kam Hong Tham, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
adopting and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
denying relief from removal. In his petition for review, Tham
first argues that he qualified for asylum. We note that the Board
expressly affirmed the IJ’s finding that Tham’s asylum application
was not timely filed and that no exceptions applied to excuse the
untimeliness. As Tham does not challenge the Board’s finding that
Tham’s asylum application was untimely, we conclude that he has
waived this claim on appeal. See Niang v.Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505,
510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that finding of untimeliness was
waived on appeal, and if not court would lack jurisdiction to
review it). We therefore may not review Tham’s claim that he is
eligible for asylum.
Tham next 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)). Based on our
review of the record, we find that substantial evidence supports
- 2 -
the finding that Tham did not establish eligibility for withholding
of removal.
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.
DISMISSED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART
- 3 -