Shabbir Punawala v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60059 Dismissed in Part, Denied in Part and Granted ] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/29/2010 [10-60059]

Shabbir Punawala v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-60059

Document: 00511258904

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/08/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-60059 S u m m a r y Calendar October 8, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

S H A B B I R AHMED PUNAWALA, 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. A099 616 502

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* S h a b b ir Ahmed Punawala, a native and citizen of India, petitions this c o u r t for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In his b r ie f, Punawala appears to challenge both the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of t h e immigration judge's (IJ) denial of withholding of removal and the BIA's d e n ia l of his motion to reconsider. The Respondent has moved for summary a ffir m a n c e .

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-60059

Document: 00511258904 Page: 2 No. 10-60059

Date Filed: 10/08/2010

A s the Respondent correctly argues, because Punawala did not file a s e p a r a t e petition for review from the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the IJ's d e n ia l of withholding of removal, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's d e c is io n dismissing his appeal. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th C ir . 2006). W e do, however, have authority to review the BIA's discretionary action in ruling on Punawala's motion for reconsideration. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F .3 d 295, 302-03 (5th Cir. 2005). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider u n d e r a "highly deferential abuse of discretion standard." Id. at 303. The BIA's d e c is io n on Punawala's reconsideration motion easily meets this standard. P u n a w a la 's motion failed to specify any errors of fact or law in the BIA's d e c is io n dismissing his appeal from the IJ's denial of withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). Punawala merely recycled the legal arguments he r a is e d in his earlier appeal. The BIA's denial of the motion for reconsideration w a s not arbitrary or even unreasonable. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304. A lt h o u g h Punawala now avers that he established "a past pattern of p e r s e c u t io n " so as to give rise to a presumption of future persecution and that t h e IJ and BIA erred in not shifting the burden of rebutting that presumption t o the Respondent, he did not raise this precise argument in his motion for r e c o n s id e r a tio n . Because Punawala has not exhausted this issue by raising it b e fo r e the BIA, this court's consideration of the issue is jurisdictionally barred. S e e Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). F o r the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS Punawala's petition in part and D E N Y it in part. We GRANT the Respondent's motion for summary affirmance.

2