* Pursuantto Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined thatthis opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances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 inadmissability 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

Clerk
No. 07-60197

1 Bhiwandiwala peppers his brief with the phrase "due process," as if to suggest

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 of status, 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 of a liberty interest.'"

(quoting Mejia Rodriguez v. Reno, 178 F.3d 1139, 1146 (11th Cir. 1999)). 

2

dismissed because Bhiwandiwala failed to provide specific reasons for the

appeal, and because the record did not indicate that Bhiwandiwala filed, within

the time set for filing a brief, a statement in support of the appeal or an

explanation of why no such document had been filed. 

Bhiwandiwala argues thatthe 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 lacks jurisdiction 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 review pertains only to the BIA's initial dismissal of Bhiwandiwala'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 together. 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 initial
No. 07-60197

3

dismissal of Bhiwandiwala's appeal,the courtlacks jurisdiction to review herein

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 of counsel, 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.