Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60823 Su m m ar y Cal endar

NAD I R M UHAMM AD , P et i t i on er,
ve r s us E R IC H . H O L D E R , J R ., U .S . A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l , R esp on d en t.

P et i t i on f

or R evi ew of

an O rder of th e B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls

N o. A 96 3 30 5 80

B e fo r e D AV IS , S M IT H , a n dD E N N IS , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: *
N ad i r M u h am m ad , a n ative an d c i t i zen of P ak i st an , petit i on s f or r evi ew of an order of

t h e B oard of

Im m i grati on A pp eal s ( “ B IA” ) d en yi n g h i s app l i cat i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60823

2 f or adj u st m en t of st atus pu rsuan t t o 8 U
. S
. C
. § 125 5. W e di sm i ss t h e p e tition i n pa rt f

or lack of j u ri sd i cti on an dde n y iti n pa rt. W e g e ne r al l y r e vi e w o nl y t he BI A’ s dec i s i o n ex c e ptt o t he ex t e ntt hatt he d e c is io n o f th e im m ig r a tio n j u d g e (“I J ”) in flu e n c e dth e B IA
. Zh u v. G on zales , 49 3 F. 3d5 88 , 5 93 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7)
. W e m ayr e vi e w t he I J’ s de c i s i o n i n t he i ns t ant c a s e , b e c a u s e th e B IAa d o p te dit. S e eCh u n v . I NS , 40 F
. 3d 76, 78 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ).U ndert he pl ai n l anguage o f t he R E A L -I D A ct, t hi s c our tdoe s nothave j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew “ an y j u dg m en tregardi n g t h e gran t i n g of reli ef un der sect i on . . . 1 255
. ” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 125 2( a) ( 2) ( B ) (i)
. Th eref ore, w e are s t atutor i l y barred fr o m r e v ie w in gth e I J ’s a n d B I A ’s p u r e lyd is c r e t io n a r yd e n ia l o f M u h a m m a d ’s a p p lic a tio n fo ra dju s tm e n t o f s ta tu s . Had w an iv. G on zales , 4 4 5 F
. 3 d 798, 800 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6)
. W e r ej e c tM uham m ad ’ s att e m ptt o c l as s i f y hi s di s ag r e e m e nt w i t h t he w e i ghi ng andco ns i de r at i o n of t he re l e va ntfac t o r s by t he I J as a n i s s ue o f e ith e rc o n s tit u tio n a l d im e n s io n o rp u r e la w . S ee i d. at801. To t he e xt entt hat M u h am m ad chal l en ges t h e d i scr et i on ary den i alof h i s requ estforadj u st m en tof s t at us , w e di s m i s s t he pe t i t i o n f o rw anto f

j ur i s di c t i o n. M uham m ad ’ s c l ai m t hathi s due pr o c e s s r i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d b e c aus e t he IJ exhibi t ed bi as aga i n st h i m based on a p ri or c on vi ct i on i s un ava i l i n g. O u r r evi e w o f t he r e c o r d d o e s no ts ho w t hatt he I J he l d a “ pe r s o nalb i as ” a ga i ns tM uh am m ad t h at aros e f rom an “extr aj u di ci alsou rce” or t h at t h e I J’ s c on du ctdem

on strate d“pe rv a sive b i a s a n dp reju d i ce.” S e eMa t t e rof Exa me , 18 I & N D ec . 303, 306 ( B IA198 2)
. M u h am m ad ’ s bi as cl ai m l acks m eri t , an d w e den y h i s pet i t i on f or r evi ew on that i ssue. M u h am m ad ’ s c on t en t i on SSt hatt he B IAc om m i t t ed l egaler r or i n notel aborat i n g on t h e reasons forit s d eci si on a n d i n n otg ran t i n g h i s requ estforrevi ew by a three- m em ber pan el
SSi s eq u a l l y u n a va i l in g . T h e B IA ’ s express assert i on th a t it w a s affirm i n g a n dad op ti n g t h e I J ’ s op i n i on w a s su ff i ci en t t o con ve y it s rea son i n g be h i n d th e den i a l of M u h a m m a d ’ s req u ested r e lie f. Se eEf ev . As h-N o. 08- 60823

3 cr oft , 2 9 3 F
. 3 d8 9 9 , 9 0 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) )
. M o r e o v e r , pur s u a n tt o 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3
. 1 ( e ) , “ [ u ] n l e s s ac a s e me e t s t h e s t a n d a r d s fo ra s s i g n me n tt o a t h r e e - me mb e rp a n e l u n d e rp a r a g r a p h (e ) ( 6 )
. . . , a ll ca s e s s h a ll b e a s s ig n e dto as in g le B oa rdm em b er for d i sp ositi on . ” M uham m ad fai l s t o pr ovi de pe r t i nentfac t s orr el evantcas e l aw to es t abl i s h t h a th i s a p p e a lfa l l s wi t h i n o n e o f c a t e g o r i e s e n u m e r at e di n 8 C. F. R. § 100 3. 1( e) ( 6)
. H i s cl ai m s regard i n g t h e B IA ’ s w ri t t en opi n i on an d i t s den i alof h is r e q u e s t fo ra t h r e e -m e m b e rp a n e l a r e w ith o u t m e r it, a n dw e d e n yth e p e tit i on f or r evi ew on those i ssues. The pe t i t i o n f

o rr e vi e w i s D I SM I SSED i n pa r tf o rw anto f

j ur i s di c t i o n a nd D E N IE D i n pa rt.