United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 16, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60119
Summary Calendar
MOHAMMAD SALIM NOSHAHI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74-083-999
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammad Salim Noshahi, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the
Immigration Judge denying his asylum application, denying
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act,
denying relief under the Convention Against Torture, and denying
voluntary departure.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-60119
-2-
The IJ’s denial of asylum was based, in part, on the
determination that Noshahi was statutorily ineligible for asylum
because he failed to file a timely asylum application. This court
lacks jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s determination that Noshahi
filed an untimely asylum application and failed to meet an
exception for waiving the deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3).
Because this court lacks jurisdiction over the IJ’s determination
that Noshahi failed to timely file his asylum application and was
therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum, we need not address
Noshahi’s remaining argument challenging the denial of asylum.
Noshahi also argues that he is entitled to relief under the
Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act and various other
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This court does
not have jurisdiction to consider these arguments because they were
not presented at the administrative level. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1); Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 554 (5th Cir. 1997).
Noshahi does not address in his brief the denial of relief
pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, nor does he address the
denial of voluntary departure. Accordingly, these claims are
abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003). Noshahi has also failed to brief in an adequate fashion and
has therefore abandoned the denial of withholding of removal and
his claim that the BIA’s dismissal violated his constitutional
rights. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 03-60119
-3-
The petition for review is therefore DISMISSED.