Akhtar v. Mukasey , 272 F. App'x 230 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-1552
    SUHAIL AKHTAR,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A74-204-705)
    Submitted:   January 9, 2008                 Decided:   April 1, 2008
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael W. Lin, BRAVERMAN & LIN, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for
    Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel
    E. Goldman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mona Maria Yousif, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Suhail   Akhtar,     a    native    and    citizen    of     Pakistan,
    petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (“Board”) finding that Akhtar is an arriving alien under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1001.1
    (q)     (2007),      and    as     such,   under      
    8 C.F.R. § 1245.2
    (a)(1)(ii)      (2007),        the    immigration       judge       had   no
    jurisdiction to adjudicate Akhtar’s application for adjustment of
    status.
    We agree with the Board that, under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1001
    (q),
    Akhtar is clearly an arriving alien seeking admission to the United
    States as defined in 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(13)(B) (2000).                               The
    applicable      regulation      clearly    provides      that   (subject        to   an
    exception not relevant here) “[i]n the case of an arriving alien
    who is placed in removal proceedings, the immigration judge does
    not have jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment
    of    status     filed     by     the     arriving       alien.”           
    8 C.F.R. § 1245.2
    (a)(1)(ii); see also 
    8 C.F.R. § 245.2
    (a)(1) (2007) (stating
    that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “has
    jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status
    filed by any alien, unless the immigration judge has jurisdiction
    to adjudicate the application under [the exception set forth in] 
    8 C.F.R. § 1245.2
    (a)(1)”).*
    *
    To the extent that Akhtar seeks to challenge the validity of
    
    8 C.F.R. § 1245
    (a)(4)(ii)(B) (2007), his failure to raise this
    claim before the Board deprives us of jurisdiction.      8 U.S.C.
    - 2 -
    We also hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in
    denying Akhtar’s motion to remand proceedings to the immigration
    judge.   See Obioha v. Gonzales, 
    431 F.3d 400
    , 408 (4th Cir. 2005)
    (standard of review of denial of motion to remand).   Therefore, we
    deny 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 DENIED
    § 1252(d)(1) (2000).
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1552

Citation Numbers: 272 F. App'x 230

Judges: Duncan, Michael, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 4/1/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023