Shah v. Gonzales
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ALI SHAH, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-238-887)
March 16, 2007
April 16, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kelly J. Walls, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Muhammad Hussain Ali Shah, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals adopting the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. "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)). To establish eligibility for protection under the Convention
Against Torture, a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that "it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2005).
Having conducted our review, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the finding that Shah failed to meet these standards. Further, we find that the IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Shah's request for a continuance. 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). See Onyeme v. INS,
Finally, we reject Shah's equal See Kandamar v.
protection challenge to the NSEERS program.
Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65, 73-74 (1st Cir. 2006); Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d
- 2 -
678, 681 n.4 (5th Cir. 2006); Zafar v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006). We accordingly 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.
- 3 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?