Abraham Osagiede v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Abraham Osagiede v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60588

Document: 00511207548

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60588 S u m m a r y Calendar August 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

A B R A H A M NOSA OSAGIEDE, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A070 441 895

B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* A b r a h a m Nosa Osagiede, a native and citizen of Nigeria, has filed a p e t it io n for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of his a p p e a l of the immigration judges (IJ's) denial of his application for withholding o f removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). O s a g ie d e argues that his deportation proceedings were fundamentally u n fa ir and thus violated his right to due process because the failure of the G o v e r n m e n t to adjudicate his pending visa petition prevented him from seeking
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60588

Document: 00511207548 Page: 2 No. 09-60588

Date Filed: 08/18/2010

a d ju s tm e n t of status. However, because Osagiede has not exhausted this issue b y raising it before the BIA, this court's consideration of the issue is ju r is d ic t io n a lly barred. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ). Osagiede also has abandoned his argument before the BIA that his a p p e a l should be held in abeyance until his appeal of his visa petition is r e s o lv e d . See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Beasley v . McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). A d d i t io n a lly , Osagiede argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's d e n ia l of withholding of removal and that he was entitled to withholding because h e was subjected to government persecution based on his political views. However, Osagiede has not shown that any past persecution was on account of h is political views or that there was a clear probability that he would be p e r s e c u t e d on account of his political views upon his return to Nigeria. See Roy v . Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the evidence does not c o m p e l a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F .3 d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007). PETITION DENIED.

2