Akhtar v. Mukasey , 272 F. App'x 230 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1552
SUHAIL AKHTAR,
Petitioner,
versus
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A74-204-705)
Submitted: January 9, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael W. Lin, BRAVERMAN & LIN, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel
E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Suhail Akhtar, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) finding that Akhtar is an arriving alien under 8
C.F.R. § 1001.1(q) (2007), and as such, under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.2(a)(1)(ii) (2007), the immigration judge had no
jurisdiction to adjudicate Akhtar’s application for adjustment of
status.
We agree with the Board that, under 8 C.F.R. § 1001(q),
Akhtar is clearly an arriving alien seeking admission to the United
States as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(B) (2000). The
applicable regulation clearly provides that (subject to an
exception not relevant here) “[i]n the case of an arriving alien
who is placed in removal proceedings, the immigration judge does
not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment
of status filed by the arriving alien.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1245.2(a)(1)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1) (2007) (stating
that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “has
jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status
filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction
to adjudicate the application under [the exception set forth in] 8
C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)”).*
*
To the extent that Akhtar seeks to challenge the validity of
8 C.F.R. § 1245(a)(4)(ii)(B) (2007), his failure to raise this
claim before the Board deprives us of jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C.
- 2 -
We also hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Akhtar’s motion to remand proceedings to the immigration
judge. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 408 (4th Cir. 2005)
(standard of review of denial of motion to remand). Therefore, 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
§ 1252(d)(1) (2000).
- 3 -