**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1736** 

SHAILESHKUMAR MANSURALI MURANI; SUNITAKUMARI SAILESHKUMAR MURANI; R.S.M. , Petitioner s ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

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

Submitted : November 20, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part ; denied in part by un published per curiam opinion

.

Janeen Hicks Pierre, RAWLS, SCHEER, FOSTER & MINGO, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina , for Petitioner s . Stuart F. Deler y, Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Duffy, Senior Litigation Counsel, Charles S. Greene, III, , Office of Immigration Liti gation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shaileshkumar Mansurali Murani (“Murani”), his wife, and minor child (collectively “Petitioners” ), natives and citizens of India, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of Murani’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We first note that the agency denied Murani’s request for asylum on the ground that he failed to file his asylum application within one year of his arrival in the United States, and failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse the late filing of his application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (20 12 ); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (201 3 ). We lack jurisdiction to review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012), and find that the Petitioners have failed to raise a constitutional claim or question of law that w ould fall under the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). See Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009)

. Gi ven this jurisdictional bar, we cannot review the underlying merits of their asylum claims. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of

the petition for review. The Petitioners also contend that the agency erred in denying Murani’s request for withholding of removal.

“ Withholding of remova l is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)3 if the alien shows that it is more likel y than not that [his] life or freedom would be threatened in the cou ntry of removal because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular soci al group, or political opinion.” Gomis , 571 F.3d

at 359 (citations omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2012). An alien “must show a ‘clear probability of persecution’ on account of a protect ed ground.” Djadjou v. Holder , 662 F.3d 265, 272 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting INS v. Stevic , 467 U.S. 407, 430 (1984)) , cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 78 8 (2012). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Murani failed to establish either past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution in India at the hands of his in

- laws. Accordin gly, we dismiss the petition for review in part and deny the petition for review in part. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the dec isional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART