United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60768
Summary Calendar
WASEEM MINHAS
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 992 976
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Waseem Minhas, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court
to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications
for waivers of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. He
contends that his procedural due process rights were violated
when he was not permitted to replead his concession to the
charges of removability on the ground that counsel was
ineffective in failing to argue that his prior 18 U.S.C. § 1542
conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60768
-2-
First, although the IJ technically denied him the opportunity to
replead his prior concession, both the IJ and the BIA
nevertheless entertained the merits of Minhas’s claim that his
prior conviction was not a CIMT. Because the substance of the
claim was actually addressed, Minhas cannot demonstrate a due
process violation. Moreover, the BIA consistently holds that a
§ 1542 conviction is a CIMT. See Matter of B-, 7 I&N Dec. 342
(BIA 1956); see also Matter of Correa-Garces, 20 I&N Dec. 451
(BIA 1992). Counsel was not deficient for, and prejudice did not
result from, the concession of removability on the ground that
Minhas had a prior conviction for a CIMT as Minhas would have
been found to be removable as charged even absent the concession.
Minhas additionally challenges the denial of the waiver of
inadmissibility both on the grounds that BIA erred in finding
that he had not established the requisite extreme hardship and as
a matter of discretion, asserting that the denial was contrary to
the evidence and manifestly unjust. This court lacks
jurisdiction to consider these claims. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h) and
1252(a)(2)(B).
The petition for review is DENIED.