Shaileshkumar Murani v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1736 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1736 SHAILESHKUMAR MANSURALI MURANI; R.S.M., MURANI; SUNITAKUMARI SAILESHKUMAR Petitioners, v.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 Petition dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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). review this determination pursuant to We lack jurisdiction 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). Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358-59 (4th Cir. 2009). See 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) 2 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 account of a protected ground. of persecution on 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). review of the record, we conclude that Based on our substantial evidence supports the finding that Murani failed to establish either past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution in for in India at the hands of his in-laws. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition review part and deny the petition for review in part. We dispense with oral legal contentions are before this and argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials court argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
