Shahul Hameed v. Holder , 531 F. App'x 155 ( 2013 )

11-2421
Shahul Hameed v. Holder
BIA
Laforest, IJ
A093 396 959
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
New York, on the 6th day of September, two thousand
thirteen.
PRESENT:
ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
Circuit Judges.
___________________________________
MOHAMED IRFAN SHAHUL HAMEED,
Petitioner,
v. 11-2421
NAC
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
FOR PETITIONER: Mohamed Irfan Shahul Hameed, pro se,
Woodside, New York.
FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General; Holly M. Smith, Senior
Litigation Counsel; John B. Holt,
Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, United
States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
is DENIED.
Petitioner Mohamed Irfan Shahul Hameed, a native and
citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks review of a May 20, 2011, order
of the BIA, affirming an April 13, 2009, decision of
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Brigitte Laforest, denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Mohamed
Irfan Shahul Hameed, No. A093 396 959 (B.I.A. May 20, 2011),
aff’g No. A093 396 959 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Apr. 13, 2009).
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts
and procedural history in this case.
Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed
both the BIA’s and IJ’s opinions, including the portions of
the IJ’s decision not explicitly discussed by the BIA.
Yun-Zui Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 394 (2d Cir. 2005).
The applicable standards of review are well-established.
2
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562
F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir. 2009).
In addition to the statutory requirement that
petitioners exhaust “all administrative remedies,”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we also require petitioners to raise
specific issues with the BIA that are later raised in this
Court, see Foster v. INS, 376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir. 2004).
This issue exhaustion requirement is “mandatory” and where,
as here, “the government points out . . . that an issue . .
. was not properly raised below, [we] must decline to
consider that issue,” absent an extraordinary situation.
Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104,107 n.1 (2d
Cir. 2007) (citing Marrero Pichardo v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d
46, 52-53 (2d Cir. 2004)).
As the government argues, Shahul Hameed failed to
exhaust his challenges to the inconsistencies that formed
the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
before the BIA. Indeed, the BIA explicitly noted Shahul
Hameed’s failure to do so, and he does not challenge that
finding here. While we may consider issues addressed by the
BIA that were not raised by an applicant in the course of an
appeal, see Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 515 n.7 (2d Cir.
3
1993), we decline to do so here, as excusing Shahul Hameed’s
failure to exhaust would not serve the purposes of issue
exhaustion, see Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162, 171 (2d
Cir. 2004) (“[A]t least one of the purposes served by the
exhaustion requirement contained in § 1252(d) is to ensure
that the INS, as the agency responsible for construing and
applying the immigration laws and implementing regulations,
has had a full opportunity to consider a petitioner’s claims
before they are submitted for review by a federal court.”).
Given that Shahul Hameed’s asylum, withholding of
removal, and CAT claims shared the same factual predicate,
he has not shown that the agency erred in finding him
ineligible for relief due to his lack of credibility. See
Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148, 156 (2d Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
DENIED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4