Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0468-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mizanur RAHMAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60095.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 15, 2004.
    Estela Richeda, Law Office of Estela Richede, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    Margaret J. Perry, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Mizanur Rahman petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision to deny his application for asylum. He has not challenged the denial of withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. He also has not challenged the finding that he was not entitled to asylum on the basis of threats and extortion applied by the Shanti Bahini, a rebel group in Bangladesh. These claims are therefore deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Rahman contends that the immigration judge erred in making an adverse credibility finding. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and conclude that Rahman has not established that the record compels that the credibility ruling be overturned. Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir.2002).

Rahman also contends that the immigration judge did not make findings regarding his request for asylum based upon an imputed political opinion. He did not raise this argument before the BIA, either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen. Thus, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this claim. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, this court may not consider the issue. The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.