Hui Fang Dong v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1894
HUI FANG DONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: September 25, 2009 Decided: October 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Bruno Joseph Bembi, Hempstead, New York, for Petitioner. Jeffrey
S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez
Wright, Assistant Director, Andrew B. Insenga, OFFICE OF
IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hui Fang Dong, a native and citizen of China, seeks
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board)
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of relief from
removal. Dong first challenges the denial of asylum. Because
the Board found that Dong’s asylum application was untimely and
that no exceptions applied to excuse the untimeliness, we find
that we are without jurisdiction to review this claim. See
Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part with
respect to this claim.
We have reviewed Dong’s remaining claims regarding the
denial of withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture, and conclude that they are without
merit. We therefore deny the petition for review with respect
to these claims for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:
Dong (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2007). Finally, we find no abuse of
discretion in the Board’s decision declining to reopen and
remand this matter to the IJ.
We accordingly 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
3