Case: 19-60774 Document: 00515774102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60774 March 10, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Hamzeh Hani Marei Sharan, Petitioner, versus Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A060 834 204 Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Hamzeh Hani Marei Sharan, a native and citizen of Jordan, seeks review of the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We DENY his petition. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60774 Document: 00515774102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2021 No. 19-60774 I Sharan entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in November 2009. He attended school in Jordan from December 2009 to March 2013, but he traveled to the United States during school breaks. In March 2013, he returned to the United States full-time and enrolled in school in Houston, Texas. On December 26, 2016, Sharan was arrested in Fort Bend County, Texas for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He was convicted of that offense on September 12, 2017. On November 30, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security served Sharan with a Notice to Appear for removal proceedings, alleging that the drug conviction rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The Immigration Judge found Sharan to be inadmissible as charged. Sharan then applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. 1 The IJ denied the application on the ground that Sharan failed to establish 7 years of continuous residence in the United States, as required to be eligible for the waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Sharan timely petitioned for our review. II Sharan argues that: (1) the BIA applied the wrong standard to determine when he stopped accruing continuous residence in the United States; (2) the BIA erred by concluding that he had not resided continuously in the United States for 7 years; (3) the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to continue the removal proceedings; (4) the IJ erred by requiring evidence that was unavailable; and (5) the IJ violated his due process rights by 1 Sharan also applied for, and was denied, cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. He does not challenge that denial in his petition. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not raised in the petition for review are abandoned). 2 Case: 19-60774 Document: 00515774102 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2021 No. 19-60774 preventing his father from testifying, interrupting his own testimony, and making biased remarks during the hearing. While we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to waive inadmissibility, we retain jurisdiction over constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals