Hamid v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 17, 2024
• Docket: 23-1179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHAUDHRI ABDUL HAMID, No. 23-1179 Agency No. Petitioner, A091-209-769 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Chaudhri Abdul Hamid, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). Petitioner did not administratively

appeal the IJ’s denial of his applications for asylum or for protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT).

Petitioner contends for the first time in this court that the IJ lacked

jurisdiction to conduct Petitioner’s removal proceedings because of deficiencies in

the Notice to Appear (NTA). Petitioner failed to exhaust any such contention, and

it would be precluded in any event by our decision in United States v. Bastide-

Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that

deficiencies in an NTA do not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction), cert.

denied, 143 S. Ct. 755 (2023).

Petitioner maintains that the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal was

arbitrary and irrational. Yet he raises no colorable constitutional claims or

questions of law that would be within our jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

He challenges the agency’s characterization of the facts and the weight given

the multiple adverse factors. These challenges go to the merits of the agency’s

discretionary decision, which we lack jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 n.4 (2024) (“[I]f the IJ

decides a noncitizen is eligible for cancellation of removal at step one, his step-two

discretionary determination on whether or not to grant cancellation of removal

2 23-1179 . . . is not reviewable as a question of law.”)

Petitioner has not shown that the evidence, even if true, compels a finding of

past persecution, and he does not challenge the determination that his testimony

was not credible, a determination that was dispositive of his withholding claim.

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). There is no basis for

overturning the denial of withholding.

Petitioner contends that he should have been granted CAT protection, but

because this contention was not exhausted before the BIA, it is not properly before

us. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th

Cir. 2023).

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

3 23-1179