Asghar v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Asghar v. Ashcroft

111 F. App'x 958

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2004

DocketNo. 03-72429

StatusPublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 958 (Asghar v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asghar v. Ashcroft, 111 F. App'x 958 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Raja Naeem Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying Asghar’s motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening because Asghar was served in person with the Notice to Appear, which specified the date and time of his hearing and warned him explicitly of the consequences of his failure to appear. See id. (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(A), 1229a(b)(5)(C)).

To the extent Asghar raises additional issues about the processing of his asylum application, they are not properly before this Court because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Raja Naeem Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying Asghar’s motion to reopen proceedings in which he was ordered removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076, 1078 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening because Asghar was served in person with the Notice to Appear, which specified the date and time of his hearing and warned him explicitly of the consequences of his failure to appear. See id. (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(A), 1229a(b)(5)(C)).

To the extent Asghar raises additional issues about the processing of his asylum application, they are not properly before this Court because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 F. App'x 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asghar-v-ashcroft-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack