Moselhy v. Blanche

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 9, 2026
Docket25-60546
StatusUnpublished

This text of Moselhy v. Blanche (Moselhy v. Blanche) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moselhy v. Blanche, (5th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

Case: 25-60546 Document: 63-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 9, 2026 No. 25-60546 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________

Mahmoud Mohamed Reda Mahmoud Moselhy,

Petitioner,

versus

Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A221 345 118 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Mahmoud Mohamed Reda Mahmoud Moselhy, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60546 Document: 63-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2026

No. 25-60546

standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). First, Moselhy’s due process claims are not cognizable. See Santos- Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 425 (2023); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2019). Next, Moselhy argues that the agency violated the regulations that govern relief applications. Because the Government is correct that he did not exhaust the claims before the BIA, we will not consider them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247, 257 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2023). The petition for review is DENIED.

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

Related

Maria Lowe v. Jefferson Sessions, III
872 F.3d 713 (Fifth Circuit, 2017)
Jose Ramos-Portillo v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge
919 F.3d 955 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
Medina Carreon v. Garland
71 F.4th 247 (Fifth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moselhy v. Blanche, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moselhy-v-blanche-ca5-2026.