Ahmedv.Mukasey

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitMay 20, 2008
278 Fed. Appx. 293 (4th Cir. 2008)

No. 07-1298.

Submitted: January 31, 2008.

Decided: May 20, 2008.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Anser Ahmad, Ahmad Law Offices, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L. Menkin, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Saeed Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying relief from removal. Though Ahmed challenges the denial of asylum, we note that the Board specifically upheld the IJ's finding that Ahmed's asylum application was untimely. Ahmed does not challenge the finding of untimeliness, and we note that regardless we are without jurisdiction to consider a such a challenge. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(a)(3) (West 2005).

With regard to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, we find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Ahmed was a member of a terrorist organization such that he is barred from that relief. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) (West 2005); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2) (2007). Finally, we uphold the finding that Ahmed failed to qualify for the relief of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4) (2007).

We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part 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 DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.