Rahman v. Ashcroft , 89 F. App'x 468 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 15, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60095
Summary Calendar
MIZANUR RAHMAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 474 401
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mizanur Rahman petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the
immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum.
He has not challenged the denial of withholding of removal or
relief under the Convention Against Torture. He also has not
challenged the finding that he was not entitled to asylum on the
basis of threats and extortion applied by the Shanti Bahini, a
rebel group in Bangladesh. These claims are therefore deemed
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-60095
-2-
abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052
(5th Cir. 1986).
Rahman contends that the immigration judge erred in making
an adverse credibility finding. We have reviewed the record and
the briefs and conclude that Rahman has not established that the
record compels that the credibility ruling be overturned. Lopez
De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002).
Rahman also contends that the immigration judge did not make
findings regarding his request for asylum based upon an imputed
political opinion. He did not raise this argument before the
BIA, either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen. Thus, he
has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to
this claim. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2001). Accordingly, this court may not consider the issue. The
petition for review is DENIED.