Hwie Liong Lim v. Attorney General of the United States

*Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Senior Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-1630
___________
HWIE LIONG LIM,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
___________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A96-264-329
Immigration Judge: Honorable Miriam K. Mills
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 28, 2006
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judge,
and ALARCON,* Circuit Judge.
(Filed: May 15, 2006)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, Hwie Liong Lim, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals which denied his application for asylum as untimely. Petitioner
filed his asylum application almost four years after he arrived in the United States.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), an alien must file his application for asylum within
one year of his arrival in the United States. Only upon a showing of changed
circumstances which materially affect the alien’s eligibility for asylum or of extraordinary
circumstances explaining the delay will this limitations period be extended. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(a)(2)(D). Because Petitioner filed his application almost three years after the
filing deadline, and there existed no reason for extending the one year limitations period,
the Immigration Judge denied his application as untimely. Because the Board adopted
and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s opinion, we review her opinion as the opinion of
the Board. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir. 2005).
With respect to Petitioner’s asylum application, we lack jurisdiction to review the
Board’s denial. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185 (3d
Cir. 2003). We will therefore dismiss the petition for review of Lim’s claim.
With respect to the Board’s denial of withholding of removal, Petitioner did not
adequately raise this issue in his opening brief, and it is waived. Although Petitioner

-- 2 of 3 --

1. Similarly, the issue of relief under the Convention Against Torture has also been
waived as Petitioner made no argument in support of it before the Board nor in his
opening Brief and therefore, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this claim.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
twice asserted in the argument section of his brief that he was eligible for withholding of
removal, he provided no substantive legal argument to support his assertion. See Voci v.
Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607, 610 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772,
775 n. 5 (3d Cir. 2004) (“An issue is waived unless a party raises it in its opening brief,
and for those purposes a passing reference to an issue will not suffice to bring that issue
before an appellate court.”))1 We therefore will deny the petition for review.

-- 3 of 3 --