United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60701
Summary Calendar
NAZIR NOORRUDDIN CHARANIA; MUNIRA CHARANIA; MONISHA
CHARANIA; ALI CHARANIA,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A73 577 729
BIA No. A73 577 730
BIA No. A73 556 558
BIA No. A73 556 569
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioners seek review of an order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. They
contend that the assistance they received from counsel was so
ineffective that it impinged on their due process rights.
As Petitioners raise a constitutional issue, we have
jurisdiction to consider their petition. See Mai v. Gonzales, 473
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 2006). Petitioners’ ineffective assistance
claims, however, relate to their hope of obtaining discretionary
relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). They thus have not alleged the
deprivation of an interest vested with due process protections.
See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003).
Their petition for review of the BIA’s final removal order is
therefore denied. To the extent that the petition is construed as
seeking review from the BIA’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to
reopen on grounds of ineffective assistance and due process, it is
likewise denied. By failing to challenge the BIA’s decision that
they are not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal,
Petitioners have abandoned any challenge in that regard. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2