Appellate Case: 21-9584 Document: 010110731590 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 30, 2022 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court BOUCADARY SIMPARA, Petitioner, v. No. 21-9584 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, United States Attorney General, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, MATHESON and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Boucadary Simpara petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal and denying his motion to remand to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). Because Mr. Simpara failed to exhaust several issues before the BIA that he raises in his petition for review, we dismiss his * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-9584 Document: 010110731590 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 2 petition in part for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we deny the petition on the remaining issues because Mr. Simpara does not demonstrate (1) error in the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal or (2) an abuse of discretion in its denial of his motion to remand. I. BACKGROUND Mr. Simpara is a native and citizen of Mali. In 2013, he entered the U.S. on a student visa at age 18. In 2021, an IJ found him removable based on his failure to comply with his student visa. She also denied his applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA denied his appeal. It also denied his motion to remand to the IJ, in which he argued changed country conditions in Mali. Mr. Simpara bases his claims for relief on fear that his family, with the government’s help, will persecute and torture him if he is removed to Mali. He bases this fear on his having—during his time in the U.S.—gotten tattoos, married outside of his tribe without his family’s permission, converted from Islam to Christianity, and been arrested and jailed for a criminal sex offense—all, he says, in violation of Islamic Sharia law. He also contends that he fears that non-family members will persecute and torture him in Mali. A. Mr. Simpara’s Declaration and Testimony In his declaration and testimony before the IJ, Mr. Simpara said the following: 2 Appellate Case: 21-9584 Document: 010110731590 Date Filed: 08/30/2022 Page: 3 He has been in the U.S. since 2013, but lost his visa status in 2016 when he discontinued his studies. In 2017, without his family’s permission, Mr. Simpara married a U.S. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals