Mahbod Fari v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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