Zia Ul Hassan v. John Ashcroft

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1641
ZIA UL HASSAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
No. 03-1642
LUBNA ZIA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
No. 03-1643
MOHAMMAD ZIA,
Petitioner,

-- 1 of 4 --

2
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT,
Respondent.
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-773-569, A76-773-205, A76-773-376)
Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 16, 2003
Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitions denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Twinckle K. Vaidya, Richard S. Bromberg, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret
J. Perry, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jacqueline R. Dryden, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

* Finally, while we do not have jurisdiction to consider the
denial of the asylum claims as untimely, we retain jurisdiction to
consider the denials of the requests for withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture as they are not
subject to the one-year time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)
3
PER CURIAM:
Zia Ul Hassan and his wife, Lubna Zia, and son, Mohammad Zia,
natives and citizens of Pakistan, petition for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board"). The order affirmed,
without opinion, the immigration judge's order denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture. For the reason discussed
below, we deny the petitions for review.
The immigration judge found Hassan’s and his family’s asylum
claims were untimely and they failed to offer any explanation to
demonstrate a change in circumstances or extraordinary
circumstances excusing the late filing of the applications for
asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000); 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4), (5) (2003). We conclude we lack jurisdiction to
review the immigration judge’s ruling pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3) (2000). See Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 544
(6th Cir. 2003); Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180, 185-86 (3d
Cir. 2003); Tsevegmid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1231, 1235 (10th Cir.
2003); Fahim v. United States Attorney Gen., 278 F.3d 1216, 1217-18
(11th Cir. 2002); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001);
Ismailov v. Reno, 263 F.3d 851, 854-55 (8th Cir. 2001). *

-- 3 of 4 --

(2003). However, in their brief, Hassan and his family do not
specifically challenge the denial of these two forms of relief.
4
Accordingly, we deny the petitions 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.
PETITIONS DENIED

-- 4 of 4 --