Murokib v. Mukasey , 274 F. App'x 237 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2330
AGUS MUROKIB,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-193-333)
Submitted: March 20, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Urbanski, LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. URBANSKI, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Andrew B.
Insenga, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Agus Murokib, a native and citizen of Indonesia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
In his petition for review, Murokib first challenges the
determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for
asylum. The Board and immigration judge denied his request for
asylum on the ground that he failed to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application within one
year of his arrival in the United States, and we lack jurisdiction
to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3)
(2000), even in light 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). Given this
jurisdictional bar, we also cannot review the underlying merits of
his asylum claim.
Murokib also contends that the immigration judge erred in
denying his 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)
- 2 -
(citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)); see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1251(b)(3) (2007). Based on our review of the record, we find
that Murokib failed to make the requisite showing before the
immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of his 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
*
Because Murokib failed to challenge the immigration judge’s
denial of his request for protection under the Convention Against
Torture before the Board, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000) (“A court may review a final order of
removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.”); Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861(2005) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument
that was not raised before the Board).
- 3 -