NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0295n.06

Case No. 18-3961

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ABBAS AL-MURSHIDY,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS 

OPINION

BEFORE: GILMAN, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Abbas Al-Murshidy seeks review of a 

decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) 

denial of Al-Murshidy’s application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons set forth below, we DENY Al-Murshidy’s petition for 

review.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

Al-Murshidy’s family fled Iraq prior to his birth because his father helped the United States 

during the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. He was born in a refugee camp in Saudi Arabia 

and was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1994 when he was less than a year old. AlMurshidy became a lawful permanent resident in 1996. He has never been to Iraq, nor does he 
No. 18-3961, Al-Murshidy v. Barr, 

- 2 -

have any family there. Al-Murshidy fears being deported to Iraq because he is westernized due to 

his time in the United States, does not speak Arabic well, and might be associated with his father’s 

work against Saddam Hussein.

B. Procedural background

In 2011, Al-Murshidy was convicted on (1) three counts of assault with intent to cause 

great bodily harm, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84(1)(a); (2) one count of discharging 

a firearm at a dwelling or occupied structure, in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.234b; 

(3) one count of possession of a firearm while committing a felony, in violation of Mich. Comp. 

Laws § 750.227b; and (4) one count of malicious destruction of personal property, in violation of 

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.377a(1)(c)(i). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated 

removal proceedings based on Al-Murshidy’s status as (1) an alien convicted of an aggravated 

felony (a “crime of violence”), under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(F) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); (2) an 

alien convicted under a law involving a firearm or destructive device, under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(C); and (3) an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, under 

8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). 

Al-Murshidy applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (INA) and deferral of removal under the CAT. After a hearing in 2013, the IJ concluded that 

Al-Murshidy was not eligible for withholding of removal because he had committed a “particularly 

serious crime,” see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), and that Al-Murshidy failed to meet his burden 

of proving eligibility for deferral of removal. 

Four years later, Al-Murshidy submitted a motion to reopen the removal proceedings based 

on changed country conditions in Iraq. The IJ granted his motion, concluding that Al-Murshidy 

was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he established prima facie eligibility for deferral of 
No. 18-3961, Al-Murshidy v. Barr, 

- 3 -

removal under the CAT. Al-Murshidy then filed a new application for deferral of removal. The 

IJ held two hearings, during which Al-Murshidy testified that he would likely be harmed in Iraq 

due to anti-American sentiment and his father’s actions during the first Gulf War. 

After the hearings, the IJ denied Al-Murshidy’s application for deferral of removal. 

According to the IJ’s decision, “it is purely speculative whether anyone in Iraq remembers [AlMurshidy’s] father’s actions during the first Gulf War.” Al-Murshidy’s sister, moreover, testified 

that she safely spent eight months in Iraq without experiencing any anti-American sentiment. And 

the militias that Al-Murshidy fears are mostly comprised of Shiites like himself who are primarily 

concerned with eradicating Da’esh (also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS). 

In sum, the IJ found that Al-Murshidy’s “fear of returning to Iraq is predominately based 

on his length of residence in the United States and his lack of familiarity with Iraqi culture.” The 

IJ also concluded that, although “Iraq is a dangerous place, [Al-Murshidy] cannot meet his burden 

by providing evidence of violence that affects the general population.” As a result, the IJ found 

that Al-Murshidy failed to satisfy his burden of showing that “there is a more likely than not chance 

that the Iraqi government would acquiesce to his torture.” (Emphasis in original.) Al-Murshidy 

appealed to the BIA, which concluded that the IJ’s findings were supported by the record. The 

BIA therefore dismissed his appeal. 

II. ANALYSIS

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order 

of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense 

covered in [8 U.S.C. §§] 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D).” When a noncitizen is 

removable by reason of having committed a crime covered by § 1252(a)(2)(C), the INA therefore 

allows us to review “claims only insofar as they raise constitutional issues or questions of law.” 
No. 18-3961, Al-Murshidy v. Barr, 

- 4 -

Ventura-Reyes v. Lynch, 797 F.3d 348, 356 (6th Cir. 2015); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) 

(“Nothing in subparagraph [(C)] . . . shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional 

claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of 

appeals in accordance with this section.”). Factual errors qualify as legal errors only when 

“important facts ‘have been totally overlooked and others have been seriously mischaracterized.’” 

Ventura-Reyes, 797 F.3d at 360 (emphasis in original) (quoting Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 

323 (2d Cir. 2009)). We review questions of law and constitutional issues de novo. Shabo v. 

Sessions, 892 F.3d 237, 240 (6th Cir. 2018).

In the present case, the DHS found that Al-Murshidy was removable under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for having been convicted of an aggravated felony; under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)

for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude; and under 

§ 1227(a)(2)(C) for having been convicted of a crime involving a firearm or destructive device. 

Al-Murshidy did not challenge his removability before the IJ or the BIA, nor does he challenge 

his removability before this court. Our review of Al-Murshidy’s petition is therefore limited to 

questions of law or constitutional issues regarding deferral of removal pursuant to the CAT.

Al-Murshidy’s brief describes the current conditions in Iraq in support of his argument that 

he would be unable to return without facing the possibility of being tortured by government actors. 

He describes, among other things, the rise of ISIS, the culture of torture pervading Iraq, and rising 

anti-American sentiment. Al-Murshidy contends that, due to these conditions, he met his burden 

of proving eligibility for relief under the CAT. But Al-Murshidy’s disagreement with the IJ’s 

factual conclusions does not amount to a question of law or a constitutional issue. See Shabo, 892 

F.3d at 239 (“‘[W]hether the BIA correctly considered, interpreted, and weighed the evidence 

presented’ is not a constitutional issue or question of law.” (quoting Arestov v. Holder, 489 F.
No. 18-3961, Al-Murshidy v. Barr, 

- 5 -

App’x 911, 916 (6th Cir. 2012))). Nor does Al-Murshidy point to any specific fact that either the 

IJ or the BIA “totally overlooked” or “seriously mischaracterized.” See Ventura-Reyes, 797 F.3d 

at 360. Because Al-Murshidy does not raise any question of law or constitutional issue on appeal, 

this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons set forth above, we DENY Al-Murshidy’s petition for review.