Bilal Ahmed v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen ( 2020 )

Case: 19-60259 Document: 00515527122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-60259 United States Court of Appeals
Summary Calendar
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 14, 2020
BILAL AHMED, also known as Bill Ahmed, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioner
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A096 762 262
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Bilal Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of the
dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application seeking withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Ahmed
also sought adjustment of status. However, this application was transferred
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 19-60259 Document: 00515527122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
No. 19-60259
by the IJ to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
after determining it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application.
Before this court, Ahmed does not challenge the BIA’s determination
that he is subject to removal because he failed to satisfy his burden for
withholding of removal and CAT protection. Accordingly, he has abandoned
any such challenge. See Soadjede v. Aschcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003).
Ahmed contends that his removal proceedings are a nullity because his
notice to appear did not specify a time or date for him to appear in immigration
court. He also appears to challenge the IJ’s decision determining that it lacked
jurisdiction to consider his application for adjustment of status due to his
classification as an arriving alien. In addition, Ahmed appears to argue that
counsel rendered ineffective assistance in not arguing that he was entitled to
CAT protection because of his involvement in confidential Department of
Homeland Security investigations. The Government contends that Ahmed did
not exhaust these issues. Ahmed responds that he was never advised by his
attorney that he was required to present his issues to the BIA prior to
presenting them before this court. He also complains that there were
unnecessary delays that violated his constitutional rights in connection with
the adjudication of his adjustment of status application before the IJ and the
USCIS.
Judicial review of a final removal order is available only where the alien
has exhausted all administrative remedies of right. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Because the exhaustion requirement is statutorily mandated, an alien’s failure
to exhaust an issue before the BIA is a jurisdictional bar to our consideration
of the issue. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). As the
Government correctly argues, Ahmed failed to raise the above issues before the
2
Case: 19-60259 Document: 00515527122 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/14/2020
No. 19-60259
BIA. Because he failed to do so, he did not exhaust these issues, and we lack
jurisdiction to review them. See id. Therefore, Ahmed’s petition for review is
DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
3