Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01939/USCOURTS-ca4-07-01939-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sara Angela Arias-Chavez
Petitioner
J.D.M.
Petitioner
Vicente Moreno
Petitioner
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1939

VICENTE MORENO; SARA ANGELA ARIAS-CHAVEZ; J.D.M.,

Petitioners,

v.

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. 

Submitted: June 25, 2008 Decided: July 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul O’Dwyer, New York, New York, for Petitioners. Jeffrey S.

Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn LopezWright, Assistant Director, Yamileth G. HandUber, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-1939 Doc: 51 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vicente Moreno (“Moreno”), his wife, Sara Angela AriasChavez, and their minor son, J.D.M., (collectively “Petitioners”),

natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of their requests for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention

Against Torture. Moreno is the primary applicant for asylum; the

claims of his wife and son are derivative of his application. See

8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(3) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21(a) (2008).

In their petition for review, the Petitioners first

challenge the determination that they failed to establish their

eligibility for asylum. The Board and immigration judge denied the

request for asylum on the ground that Moreno failed to establish by

clear and convincing evidence that he filed his asylum application

within one year of his arrival in the United States, and we lack

jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(3) (2000), even in light of the passage of the REAL ID

Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231. See Almuhtaseb v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 747-48 (6th Cir. 2006) (collecting cases).

Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying

merits of the Petitioners’ asylum claims.

The Petitioners also contend that the immigration judge

erred in denying their request for withholding of removal. “To

Appeal: 07-1939 Doc: 51 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

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)); see

8 C.F.R. § 1251(b)(3) (2008). Based on our review of the record,

we find that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite showing

before the immigration court. We therefore uphold the denial of

their request for withholding of removal.

Finally, we find that substantial evidence supports the

Board’s finding that the Petitioners failed to meet the standard

for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such

relief, an applicant must establish 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) (2008).

Additionally, the petitioner must show that he or she will be

subject to “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental

. . . by or at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an

official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1) (2008); see

Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 246 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2008). We

find that the Petitioners failed to make the requisite showing

before the Board.

Appeal: 07-1939 Doc: 51 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

Accordingly, we 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.

PETITION DENIED

Appeal: 07-1939 Doc: 51 Filed: 07/17/2008 Pg: 4 of 4