UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60025
Summary Calendar
KHURAM SHAHZAD, also known as
Khuram Diwan Shahzad,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A77 754 466)
_________________________________________________________________
October 9, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Khuram Shahzad, a native of Kuwait and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge
(IJ). The IJ: denied Shahzad’s application for asylum as
untimely; denied withholding of removal under both the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) and the United Nations Convention Against
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (Convention Against Torture); and denied voluntary
departure.
Because Shahzad has not briefed the denial of voluntary
departure, that claim is deemed abandoned. See, e.g., Rodriguez v.
INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993); Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Shahzad contends his claim for asylum should not have been
dismissed for failure to file a timely application. He also
contends he has established entitlement to relief for withholding
of removal under both the INA and the Convention Against Torture
because he established past persecution based on his Christian
beliefs and a well-founded fear of being persecuted if returned to
Pakistan.
Concerning asylum, the BIA determined: Shahzad failed to file
his application within the one-year deadline established by INA §
208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); and he failed to meet an
exception to application of the deadline. We conclude this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. See INA §
208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); see also Fahim v. United States
Attorney General, 278 F.3d 1216, 1217 (11th Cir. 2002).
For Shahzad’s claims for withholding of removal, we conclude
that the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992); Mikhael v. INS,
2
115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Further, Shahzad has not shown
that his claim under the Convention Against Torture is based on
persecution inflicted by or with the consent or acquiescence of
public officials. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16(c), 208.18(a)(1).
DENIED
3