Case ID: f-appx_441/html/0058-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andy IQBAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-5152-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2011.
    H. Raymond Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Tony West, Assistant Attorney General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Assistant Director; Jeffery R. Leist, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, ROBERT A. KATZMANN, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Andy Iqbal, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a November 26, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the July 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Douglas Schoppert, which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Andy Iqbal, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City July 6, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

As his sole argument, Iqbal contends for the first time that the agency failed to analyze his claim for CAT relief separately from his claim for withholding of removal. Because he did not raise this argument before the BIA, it is unexhausted, and we decline to review it. See Lin Zhong v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir.2007) (holding that, while not jurisdictional, the judicially imposed issue exhaustion requirement is mandatory).

For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).