20-1618 Mureed Hussain v. Garland BIA Lurye, IJ A208 418 739 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. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall 3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 4 New York, on the 3rd day of May, two thousand twenty-three. 5 6 PRESENT: 7 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 8 Chief Judge, 9 GERARD E. LYNCH, 10 BETH ROBINSON, 11 Circuit Judges. 12 _____________________________________ 13 14 BILAL MUREED HUSSAIN, 15 Petitioner, 16 17 v. 20-1618 18 NAC 19 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED 20 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 21 Respondent. 22 _____________________________________ 23 24 FOR PETITIONER: Tobin Kohane, Esq., New York, NY. 25 26 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant 27 Attorney General; Keith I. 28 McManus, Assistant Director; Scott 1 M. Marconda, Trial Attorney, 2 Office of Immigration Litigation, 3 United States Department of 4 Justice, Washington, DC. 5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 8 is DENIED. 9 Petitioner Bilal Mureed Hussain, a native and citizen of 10 Pakistan, seeks review of an April 24, 2020, decision of the 11 BIA affirming a July 19, 2018, decision of an Immigration 12 Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum, withholding 13 of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture 14 (“CAT”). In re Bilal Mureed Hussain, No. A 208-418-739 15 (B.I.A. Apr. 24, 2020), aff’g No. A 208-418-739 (Immig. Ct. 16 N.Y.C July 19, 2018). We assume the parties’ familiarity 17 with the underlying facts and procedural history. 18 We have considered both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions “for 19 the sake of completeness.” Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland 20 Sec., 448 F.3d 524, 528 (2d Cir. 2006). We deny the petition 21 because Mureed Hussain has failed to exhaust or raise any 22 challenge to dispositive grounds for the agency’s decisions. 23 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), we “may review a final order 2 1 of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all 2 administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” 3 In addition to this statutory requirement that a petitioner 4 exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the BIA, we 5 require a petitioner to raise to the BIA the specific issues 6 he seeks to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals