United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-60375

Summary Calendar

____________

Zohra Saleem Molani, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A208 659 299

______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Zohra Saleem Molani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her 

request for remand and dismissing her appeal from an order of an 

Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for cancellation of removal 

and ordering her removed. Although we may not review the factual findings 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 23, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-60375 Document: 59-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2024
No. 23-60375

2

underlying the BIA’s disposition of a cancellation claim, its determination 

that a given set of facts does or does not amount to exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship, i.e., the application of the exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship standard, is a mixed question of fact and law that is a 

reviewable legal question under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Wilkinson v. 

Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 216-17 (2024). Our de novo review of the BIA’s 

decision shows no error in its conclusion that this case was materially 

distinguishable from Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467, 470 (BIA 2002), 

and that Molani thus had not made the requisite hardship showing. See id.; 

Cordero-Chavez v. Garland, 50 F.4th 492, 495 (5th Cir. 2022).

Next, Molani argues that the IJ infringed her due process rights 

because certain statements he made concerning her cancellation claim 

exhibited bias. Because, as the Respondent notes, she failed to exhaust this 

claim by presenting it to the BIA, we will enforce the exhaustion rule and 

decline to consider this argument. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 

411, 419 (2023); Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2023).

Molani also argues that the BIA erred by rejecting her claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel and denying her request to remand to the IJ. 

The record supports the BIA’s conclusion that she had not shown 

compliance with the requirements of Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 

(BIA 1998), and thus shows no abuse of discretion with respect to this 

remand request. See Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Finally, the BIA’s denial of Molani’s request for remand based on a pending 

U visa petition was an appropriate response to Molani’s conclusional, twosentence request and, concomitantly, not an abuse of discretion. See Milat, 

755 F.3d at 365. Similarly, because the BIA’s decision reflects adequate 

consideration of Molani’s conclusional assertions concerning remand due to 

her pending U visa, the Respondent’s request to remand to the BIA for 

clarification of this part of its decision is unavailing. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 

Case: 23-60375 Document: 59-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2024
No. 23-60375

3

912 F.3d 284, 290 (5th Cir. 2019). The petition for review and the 

Respondent’s request for remand are DENIED. 

Case: 23-60375 Document: 59-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2024