Malik v. Gonzales ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2022
MUHAMMED ARIF MALIK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-636-809)
Submitted: May 17, 2006 Decided: January 11, 2007
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for
Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, John W.
Sippel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammed Arif Malik, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the decision of the
immigration judge ordering Malik’s removal to Pakistan.
Malik first alleges that his counsel below rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel in administrative proceedings
before the immigration judge. As Malik did not raise this issue
before the Board, he has failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies, as required by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(d)(1) (West 2005).
Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the claim. See Asika v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004).
Next, Malik asserts that his constitutional rights to
equal protection and due process were violated. He contends that
his prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security resulted
from his registration pursuant to the National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System (“NSEERS”), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1303, 1305 (2000), and
that a decision to prosecute based on alienage, ethnicity, or
religion violates his constitutional rights. We conclude that this
claim entitles Malik to no relief. Cf. Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d
433, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that any impact of NSEERS on
Department of Homeland Security’s decision to initiate removal
proceedings did not violate alien’s equal protection rights); Zafar
v. United States Atty. Gen., 426 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2005)
- 2 -
(“Petitioners’ equal protection rights were not violated by being
required to be registered in the National Security Entry-Exit
Registration System . . . .”). Further, under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(g)
(West 2005), courts have no jurisdiction “to hear any cause or
claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or
action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings . . . under
this chapter.” See also Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 488 (1999) (holding that § 1252(g) deprives
federal courts of jurisdiction over claims of selective enforcement
of immigration laws).
Accordingly, we deny the petition 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.
PETITION DENIED
- 3 -