Shah v. Gonzales

184 F. App'x 434
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 9, 2006
Docket05-60129
StatusUnpublished

This text of 184 F. App'x 434 (Shah v. Gonzales) 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
Shah v. Gonzales, 184 F. App'x 434 (5th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Sanjay Kirtibh Shah petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Shah contends that he is entitled to asylum and asserts that the immigration judge erred in determining that there were no changed country conditions so as to excuse the untimeliness of his asylum application. We do not, however, have jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that Shah’s asylum application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). The petition for review is thus DISMISSED as to the claims concerning asylum.

The IJ’s conclusion that Shaw was ineligible for withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Shah has not shown that he will be singled out for persecution if he returns or that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination against Muslims. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1), (2); see Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 307 (5th Cir.2005).

Shah does not argue in his brief that he was due relief under the CAT. As such, the claim is waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Shah’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 F. App'x 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shah-v-gonzales-ca5-2006.