Case ID: f-appx_278/html/0463-01.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

A.H.M. ZUBAIR, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 23, 2008.
    Amy Ghosh, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Brooke Marie Maurer, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Michael B. Mukasey, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

A.H.M. Zubair petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination of the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA that Zubair’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review in thus dismissed as to the claims concerning asylum.

Additionally, Zubair, who is represented by counsel, does not challenge the IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that he is not eligible for withholding of removal or relief under CAT. Thus, these issues are deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, Zubair’s petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Zubair’s motion to stay removal 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.