Shahzad Akram v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: A200-233-361, A200-233-362. Copies to all parties and the agency. . [16-1482]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SHAHZAD AKRAM; KINZA SHAHZAD,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
November 17, 2016
December 15, 2016
Before KING, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
Joshua A. Berman, BLAINE L. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES, PA, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Petitioners.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Enitan O. Otunla, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
husband and wife, are natives and citizens of Pakistan.
petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Against Torture (CAT).
For the reasons set forth below, we
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
On administrative appeal, the Board agreed with the IJ that
Akram’s asylum application was untimely and that the Petitioners
did not establish extraordinary circumstances that would excuse
the late asylum application.
The Board also agreed with the IJ
that, even if the asylum application was timely, Akram failed to
establish past persecution on account of a protected ground or
that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), the Attorney General’s
decision regarding whether an alien has complied with the oneyear time limit for filing an application for asylum or has
waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any court.
Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009).
Pg: 3 of 5
constitutional claims or questions of law,” we have held that
the question of whether an asylum application is untimely or
Gomis, 571 F.3d at 358 (emphasis omitted); see
Mulyani, 771 F.3d at 197.
Accordingly, our “power to review an
claim or question of law,”
Mulyani, 771 F.3d at 197, which the
jurisdiction to review that finding.
Insofar as the Petitioners
seek review of the denial of asylum, we dismiss the petition for
While we do not have jurisdiction to consider the denial of
consider the denial of withholding of removal, as this claim is
not subject to the one-year time limitation. *
See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a) (2016).
The Petitioners did not appeal to the Board the denial of
protection under the CAT and do not raise this issue in their
brief. Thus, the issue is abandoned. See United States v. Al(Continued)
Pg: 4 of 5
§ 1231(b)(3) if the alien shows that it is more likely than not
that h[is] life or freedom would be threatened in the country of
removal because of h[is] race, religion, nationality, membership
in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
F.3d at 359 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3) (2012).
An alien “must show a ‘clear probability
of persecution’ on account of a protected ground.”
Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)).
“This is a more stringent
standard than that for asylum. . . . [and], while asylum is
withholding of removal, the grant is mandatory.”
We afford “a high degree of deference” to a determination
that an alien is not eligible for withholding of removal, and
Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (observing that
contentions not raised in argument section of opening brief are
Pg: 5 of 5
could agree with the [Board]’s factual conclusions.”
Mickhou, 445 F.3d at 354 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that the Petitioners failed to establish a nexus between the
protected ground and that the record does not compel a different
Thus, we deny in part the petition for review.
petition for review.
We dispense with oral argument because the
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?