Mahbod Fari v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-60806 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: WED, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. [15-60806]

Download PDF
Case: 15-60806 Document: 00513858814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60806 Summary Calendar FILED February 1, 2017 MAHBOD GHAZAN FARI, also known as Max Fari, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner v. DANA BOENTE, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A075 154 309 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mahbod Ghazan Fari, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings in which he was found ineligible for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Fari asserts that the BIA erred in denying his request to reopen his removal proceedings for withholding of removal under the CAT 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-60806 Document: 00513858814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2017 No. 15-60806 based on changed country conditions. The Government contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the petition. The order for Fari’s removal results from his conviction of an aggravated felony. Fari does not dispute that he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Due to Fari’s aggravated felony conviction, our review is limited by statute to constitutional or legal claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (D); Siwe v. Holder, 742 F.3d 603, 607 (5th Cir. 2014). In this context, we do not have jurisdiction to review factual determinations made by the BIA. See EscuderoArciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012). In the instant matter, Fari is challenging only the BIA’s factual determinations. Because we “would not have had the authority to review a direct petition,” Fari “cannot manufacture jurisdiction simply by petitioning this court to review the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.” Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004). Fari’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?