Court Opinion

ID: 9366258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:05:05.844174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.427623
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60508     Document: 00516447322         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/25/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                              Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                      August 25, 2022
                                  No. 21-60508
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                            Clerk

   Ahmed Mohamed Sheikh Osman,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A071 686 840

   Before Smith, Elrod, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Ahmed Mohamed Sheikh Osman, a native and citizen of Somalia,
   petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for
   withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60508      Document: 00516447322          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/25/2022

                                    No. 21-60508

   (“CAT”). The alleged error is that he was mentally incompetent and did
   not receive adequate procedural safeguards to ensure the fairness of his
   removal proceeding. Specifically, he asserts the immigration judge (“IJ”)
   should have helped to develop the record by sua sponte continuing the case.
   A continuance allegedly would have allowed him to address deficiencies in
   the affidavits that the IJ found were insufficient to prove he belonged to the
   minority Midgan clan — a factual predicate for his claims.
          The parties dispute whether we have jurisdiction to review the factual
   question of Sheikh Osman’s competency, given his removability for an
   aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). We need not
   reach the issue, however, because we reject his due process challenge to the
   adequacy of the procedural safeguards. See Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec.
   474, 479 (BIA 2011); Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 694-95 (5th Cir.
   2019), abrogated on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474,
   1479-86 (2021); INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          We review the due process issue de novo. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr,
   967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). The record reflects that Sheikh Osman
   was represented by counsel and was allowed continuances to submit
   additional evidence. His attorney’s request not to draw a negative inference
   from his failure to testify was granted. Additionally, well in advance of the
   removal hearing, counsel for Sheikh Osman received notice of the
   deficiencies in the affidavits and had the opportunity to cure them by
   submitting supplemental evidence during the two continuances. Sheikh
   Osman did not request another continuance, and he fails to show good cause
   for a third continuance or that the procedural safeguards were inadequate.
   See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680-81 (5th Cir. 2006); Bright v. INS, 837
   F.2d 1330, 1332 (5th Cir. 1988); Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 483; see
   also Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 694-95.

                                           2
Case: 21-60508      Document: 00516447322          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/25/2022

                                    No. 21-60508

           Finally, we do not consider Sheikh Osman’s arguments that the
   purportedly erroneous competency finding invalidated both the analysis of
   his CAT claim and the consideration of whether his prior offense was a
   particularly serious crime. Because these issues were not raised before or
   decided by the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Martinez-
   Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022). The failure to
   exhaust also causes us to deny the motion to remand for consideration of a
   new decision on those issues. See Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 563 (A.G.
   2022). The earlier motion for a stay pending issuance of that decision is now
   moot.
           We also do not consider the arguments raised for the first time in the
   reply brief that the IJ failed to ensure he was taking the appropriate
   medication and that his representation by counsel was an inadequate
   safeguard. See Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 226 n.2 (5th Cir. 2018).
           Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
   DISMISSED IN PART. We DENY AS MOOT the motion for a stay
   pending a decision in a case the Attorney General directed be referred to him.
   See Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 424 (A.G. 2021). The motion to remand
   in light of the Attorney General’s decision is DENIED.

                                         3