UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1736

SHAILESHKUMAR MANSURALI MURANI; SUNITAKUMARI SAILESHKUMAR 

MURANI; R.S.M.,

Petitioners,

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Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Janeen Hicks Pierre, RAWLS, SCHEER, FOSTER & MINGO, PLLC, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Stuart F. Delery, 

Assistant Attorney General, Edward J. Duffy, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Charles S. Greene, III,, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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) 

(2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2) (2013). 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 would 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). Given 

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 removal is available under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) 
3

if the alien shows that it is more likely than not that [his]

life or freedom would be threatened in the country of removal 

because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social 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 protected 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. 788 (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. 

Accordingly, 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 decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART;

DENIED IN PART