* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule47.5, the court has determined that thisopinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60197 Summary Calendar

MUDASSIR MOHAMED BHIWANDIWALA, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A77 801 905
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mudassir Mohamed Bhiwandiwala, a native and citizen of India, was charged with being an alien remaining in the United States longer than permitted. Before the Immigration Judge (IJ), Bhiwandiwala applied for an adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissability. The IJ concluded that Bhiwandiwala was removable, and that Bhiwandiwala's applications for adjustment of status and for waiver of inadmissabili ty were pretermitted. Bhiwandiwala appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D March 24, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60197

1 Bhiwandiwala peppers his briefwith the phrase "due process," as iftosuggest a distinct due process claim. However, his "due process" argument merely restates his abuse of discretion argument premised on ineffective assistance.
In any event, any due process argument based on these facts would not be cognizable. According to Bhiwandiwala, the only point of error expressly raised on appeal to the BIA was that the Immigration Judge erred in denying his Adjustment of Status application. "[D]iscretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment ofstatus, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection." Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004) ("'[T]he failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation ofa liberty interest.'" (quoting Mejia Rodriguez v. Reno, 178 F.3d 1139, 1146 (11th Cir. 1999)). 2 dismissed because Bhiwandiwala failed to provide specific reasons f or the appeal, and because the record did not indicate that Bhiwandiwala filed, within the time set for fil i ng a brief, a statement in support of the appeal or an explanation of why no such document had been filed. Bhiwandiwala argues that the BIA abused its discretion in dismissing his appeal. His argument is couched in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel: the BIA allegedly abused its discretion in dismissing Bhiwandiwala's appeal because his failure to properly file his appellate documents was the fault of his attorney. 1 This court lacksjurisdiction to consider Bhiwandiwala's argument. The parties agree that Bhiwandiwala filed with the BIA a motion to reopen his appeal based on his claim of ineffective assistance. However, the BIA denied that motion after Bhiwandiwala filed the instant petition for review. As such, the instant reviewpertainsonly tothe BIA's initial dismissal ofBhiwandiwala's appeal, not to the BIA's subsequent refusal to reopen on ineffective assistance grounds. The court's cognizance of the latter disposition does not mean that it may conveniently review both BIA orders to gether. Rather, pursuant to our decision in Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006), each order must be challenged in a different petition for review, as each is a separate "final order." Because the instant petition for review pertains only to the BIA's initialNo. 07-60197

3 dismissal ofBhiwandiwala'sappeal, thecourt lacksjurisdiction toreviewherein his ineffective assistance argument. To the extent Bhiwandiwala's brief may reasonably be read to include an abuse-of-discretion argument not rooted in ineffective assistance ofcounsel, the court fails to see how the BIA abused its discretion in enforcing administrative rules governing appeals before the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) ("In its discretion, the Board may consider a brief that has been filed out of time."). Bhiwandiwala’s petition for review is DENIED.