Charania, et al v. Gonzales

Filing 920070315

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60701 Summary Calendar NAZIR NOORRUDDIN CHARANIA; MUNIRA CHARANIA; MONISHA CHARANIA; ALI CHARANIA, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A73 577 729 BIA No. A73 577 730 BIA No. A73 556 558 BIA No. A73 556 569 -------------------Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioners seek review of an order by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. They

contend that the assistance they received from counsel was so ineffective that it impinged on their due process rights. As Petitioners raise a constitutional issue, we have

jurisdiction to consider their petition.
*

See Mai v. Gonzales, 473

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

F.3d 162, 164 (5th Cir. 2006). Petitioners' ineffective assistance claims, however, relate to their hope of obtaining discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). They thus have not alleged the

deprivation of an interest vested with due process protections. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003). Their petition for review of the BIA's final removal order is therefore denied. To the extent that the petition is construed as

seeking review from the BIA's denial of Petitioners' motion to reopen on grounds of ineffective assistance and due process, it is likewise denied. they are not By failing to challenge the BIA's decision that to asylum or withholding of removal, See

entitled

Petitioners have abandoned any challenge in that regard. Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). The petition for review is DENIED.

Yohey v.

2