10-5152-ag
Iqbal v. Holder
BIA
Schoppert, IJ
A096 427 064
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 1st day of December, two thousand eleven.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JON O. NEWMAN,
8 ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
9 DENNY CHIN,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _______________________________________
12
13 ANDY IQBAL,
14 Petitioner,
15
16 v. 10-5152-ag
17 NAC
18 ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES
19 ATTORNEY GENERAL,
20 Respondent.
21 _______________________________________
22
23 FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New
24 York.
25
26 FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney
27 General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,
28 Assistant Director; Jeffery R.
29 Leist, Attorney, Office of
1 Immigration Litigation, United
2 States Department of Justice,
3 Washington, D.C.
4
5 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
6 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
7 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
8 is DENIED.
9 Andy Iqbal, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks
10 review of a November 26, 2010, order of the BIA affirming
11 the July 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”)
12 Douglas Schoppert, which denied his applications for asylum,
13 withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
14 Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Andy Iqbal, No. A096 427 064
15 (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2010), aff’g No. A096 427 064 (Immig. Ct.
16 N.Y. City July 6, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity
17 with the underlying facts and procedural history in this
18 case.
19 As his sole argument, Iqbal contends for the first time
20 that the agency failed to analyze his claim for CAT relief
21 separately from his claim for withholding of removal.
22 Because he did not raise this argument before the BIA, it is
23 unexhausted, and we decline to review it. See Lin Zhong v.
24 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007)
2
1 (holding that, while not jurisdictional, the judicially
2 imposed issue exhaustion requirement is mandatory).
3 For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is
4 DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of
5 removal that the Court previously granted in this petition
6 is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in
7 this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for
8 oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with
9 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second
10 Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
11 FOR THE COURT:
12 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
13
14
3