Nasser-Urfi v. Atty Gen USA , 298 F. App'x 123 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-5-2008
Nasser-Urfi v. Atty Gen USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1915
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Nasser-Urfi v. Atty Gen USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 265.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/265
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1915
___________
ABOU NASSER-URFI,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
___________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(No. A77-757-834)
Immigration Judge: The Honorable William K. Strasser
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 28, 2008
Before: McKEE, NYGAARD, and MICHEL,* Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 5, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
*Honorable Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
The Immigration Court entered orders denying Petitioner, Abou Nasser-Urfi’s
Application for Asylum. Nasser-Urfi appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals,
which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s order. Petitioner now appeals to this court
raising two issues. First, that the BIA erred by concluding that Urfi failed to establish a
nexus between his alleged mistreatment and a protected ground under the requested forms
of relief. And, second, he contends that the record was rendered insufficient because of
errors in transcription and recording. We will deny the Petition for Review.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and
procedure of the case, we will not reiterate them here. It is sufficient to state that we have
examined the record below and conclude that Nasser-Urfi has failed to demonstrate that
the evidence compels a conclusion contrary to that reached below. He alleged
persecution, but provided few details in support of his claim, and proved no nexus
between any alleged harm and a statutorily protected ground. Moreover, he has failed to
show a well-founded fear of future prosecution. In sum, he has failed to prove his
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider his allegations of error with respect to the
interpretation and transcription of his removal hearing because he failed to raise the issue
2
before the BIA. Because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, this issue is
waived. Alleyne v. INS, 879 F.2d 1177, 1182 (3d Cir. 1989).
In sum and for the foregoing reasons we will deny Nasser-Urfi’s Petition for
Review.
3