Mushtaq v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60313 Document: 00516982808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 23-60313 November 29, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
Muhammad Mushtaq,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 719 346
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Muhammad Mushtaq, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order upholding the
denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. (As in the
BIA, no claim is premised on the Convention Against Torture.)
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60313 Document: 00516982808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-60313
Because the BIA’s decision is reviewed for substantial evidence,
“reversal is improper unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a
contrary conclusion, but [also] that the evidence compels it”. Zhang v.
Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005) (alteration and emphasis in
original) (citation omitted). The BIA concluded Mushtaq did not show the
requisite nexus between the alleged harm and a statutorily protected ground.
See, e.g., Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, 7 F.4th 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2021)
(explaining protected ground “cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial,
or subordinate to another reason for harm” (citation omitted)). In this
instance, the BIA noted the harm suffered and feared by Mushtaq resulted
from a land dispute, not political or religious affiliation. The evidence does
not compel the requisite contrary conclusion, accordingly the asylum and
withholding-of-removal claims fail.
For the other presented claim in this petition for review, Mushtaq did
not exhaust his claim that counsel was not permitted to develop his
contentions. Because the Government raises exhaustion, our court will
enforce this claim-processing rule and decline to consider this claim. See
Munoz-De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 694 (5th Cir. 2023) (declining to
reach unexhausted claims); cf. Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 256–57 (5th
Cir. 2023) (concluding Government forfeited exhaustion contention by
failing to raise it).
DENIED.
2