Ul Hassan v. Ashcroft , 82 F. App'x 838 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-1641
    ZIA UL HASSAN,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Respondent.
    No. 03-1642
    LUBNA ZIA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Respondent.
    No. 03-1643
    MOHAMMAD ZIA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT,
    Respondent.
    On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A76-773-569, A76-773-205, A76-773-376)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2003         Decided:   December 16, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Twinckle K. Vaidya, Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for
    Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret
    J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jacqueline R. Dryden, Office
    of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Zia Ul Hassan and his wife, Lubna Zia, and son, Mohammad Zia,
    natives and citizens of Pakistan, petition for review of an order
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order affirmed,
    without   opinion,        the   immigration   judge's    order   denying   their
    applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection
    under the Convention Against Torture.             For the reason discussed
    below, we deny the petitions for review.
    The immigration judge found Hassan’s and his family’s asylum
    claims were untimely and they failed to offer any explanation to
    demonstrate       a       change   in    circumstances     or     extraordinary
    circumstances excusing the late filing of the applications for
    asylum.     See       
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(2)(B)   (2000);    
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.4
    (a)(4), (5) (2003).              We conclude we lack jurisdiction to
    review the immigration judge’s ruling pursuant to 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(3) (2000). See Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 
    341 F.3d 533
    , 544
    (6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 
    338 F.3d 180
    , 185-86 (3d
    Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 
    336 F.3d 1231
    , 1235 (10th Cir.
    2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 
    278 F.3d 1216
    , 1217-18
    (11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS, 
    273 F.3d 812
    , 815 (9th Cir. 2001);
    Ismailov v. Reno, 
    263 F.3d 851
    , 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001).*
    *
    Finally, while we do not have jurisdiction to consider the
    denial of the asylum claims as untimely, we retain jurisdiction to
    consider the denials of the requests for withholding of removal and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture as they are not
    subject to the one-year time limitation. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.4
    (a)
    3
    Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
    PETITIONS DENIED
    (2003).   However, in their brief, Hassan and his family do not
    specifically challenge the denial of these two forms of relief.
    4