Shah v. Gonzales ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60581
Summary Calendar
AAMIR SHAH, also known as Piyar Jaffer Ali,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 831 797
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, CIRCUIT JUDGES.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Aamir Shah petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Shah’s application for
asylum as untimely and denying his application for withholding of
removal. Shah contends that the IJ erred by denying his asylum
application as untimely, urging that he had good cause not to file
it within the statutory period. Shah also contends that the IJ
erred in denying his application for withholding of removal because
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
he presented evidence to show that it is more likely than not that
he will be subject to persecution upon his return to Pakistan.
The BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s denial of asylum relied on
the IJ’s determination that Shah’s application was untimely.
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of asylum.
Cf. Zhu v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 521, 526 (5th Cir. 2004). Shah has
not shown that the evidence presented in his case compels the
conclusion that the IJ erroneously denied his application for
withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.
1994). As there is substantial evidence to support the IJ’s
determination, Shah is not entitled to relief. See Efe v.
Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, Shah’s petition for review is
DENIED.