Hui Fang Dong v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920091006

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. See 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 See In re:

to these claims for the reasons stated by the Board. Dong (B.I.A. Aug. 16, 2007). discretion in the Board's

Finally, we find no abuse of declining to reopen and

decision

remand this matter to the IJ. We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the are adequately presented in the

contentions

2

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

3