XU Meiqiong v. Eric Holder, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MEIQIONG XU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
February 27, 2009
March 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason A. Nielson, LAW OFFICES OF JOE ZHENGHONG ZHOU AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Flushing, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie M. McKay, Assistant Director, Kristin K. Edison, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Meiqiong Xu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order and of the Board the of Immigration Appeals (IJ) Xu
decision denying her applications for relief from removal.
first challenges the Board's finding that she waived appeal of the IJ's finding that she filed an untimely asylum application and no exceptions applied. We find it unnecessary to address
this claim because the Board found alternatively that Xu failed to show changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing to of her asylum this application, and See we 8 lack U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(3) (2006); Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505, 510 n.5 (4th Cir. 2007); Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Given that the Board
reviewed the finding at issue, we reject Xu's assertion that she was denied due process when the Board found that she waived appeal. Next, Xu challenges the finding below that she failed to qualify 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 2
Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)). Having evidence conducted supports our the review, finding we conclude Xu that not substantial establish
eligibility for withholding of removal.
We likewise uphold the
finding below that Xu failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she would be tortured if removed to China. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2008). Finally, we decline to
consider evidence in the administrative record that was not the basis for the Board's decision currently before us, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (2006), and deny Xu's motion for abeyance
pending a ruling on her motion to reopen as moot. We thus 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
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?