United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60747

Summary Calendar

Heithem Mohammad Abdul-Khaliq, also known as Heithen 

Abdul, also known as Heithem Khaliq, also known as Heithen

Mohammed Khaliq, also known as Abdul Khaliq, also known as

Heithen Khaliq, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A042 381 990

Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Heithem Mohammad Abdul-Khaliq, a native and citizen of Saudi 

Arabia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60747 Document: 00516340696 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 20-60747

2

denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings, in which his 

application for cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents, 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b(a), was denied. He asserts the BIA: failed to accept 

evidence; based its decision on an incorrect legal standard; did not articulate 

the reasons for denying his motion to reopen; and violated his due-process 

rights.

Questions of jurisdiction are, of course, reviewed de novo. E.g., 

Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Our court generally 

lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of an application for 

cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (noting court does not 

have jurisdiction over “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under 

section . . . 1229b”). Petitioner “cannot manufacture jurisdiction” by 

petitioning for review of a motion to reopen when our court would lack 

jurisdiction to review a petition challenging a decision following an appeal to 

the BIA. Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Regarding the assertions that the BIA failed to accept evidence and 

based its decision on an incorrect legal standard, we have jurisdiction to 

address constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 

These assertions, however, amount to a request for reconsideration of the 

BIA’s discretionary decision couched in legal terms, which does not confer 

jurisdiction. See Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599–600 (5th Cir. 

2006) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction when discretionary issue phrased as 

question of law). 

The contention that the BIA erred by failing to sufficiently explain its 

decision denying the motion to reopen is unexhausted, which also deprives 

of us jurisdiction to hear that claim. See Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 

F.4th 353, 360 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining challenges “aris[ing] only as a 

Case: 20-60747 Document: 00516340696 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 20-60747

3

consequence of the Board’s error” unexhausted unless presented to BIA in 

motion to reconsider (emphasis in original) (citation omitted)). 

Finally, the claim that the BIA’s decision not to reopen the 

proceedings violated Abdul-Khaliq’s due-process rights is not cognizable. 

See Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining “no 

liberty interest exists in a motion to reopen, and therefore due process claims 

are not cognizable in the context of reopening proceedings”). 

DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 

Case: 20-60747 Document: 00516340696 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2022