Mushtaq Ahmed v. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General (2006)

Afzal v. Holder, 559 F.3d 677, 679 (7th Cir.2009); Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir.2004); cf. Benslimane v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 828, 831-33 (7th Cir.2005); but see Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437-39 (5th Cir.2006).

But see Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437-38 (5th Cir.2006) (holding that denial of continuance because grandfathered alien did not yet possess immigrant visa is not abuse of discretion); Zafar v. U.S. Att’y.

Cf. Ahmed, 447 F.3d at 439 (“In this matter, the immigration judge simply exercised his discretion at the first stage of this lengthy and discretionary process when he refused to grant Ahmed a continuance for good cause shown.”).

The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.” Id.; see Malik v. Gonzales, 213 F. App’x 173 , 174–75 (4th Cir. 2007); Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65 , 72–74 (1st Cir. 2006); Zafar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006); Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659 , 664–65 (7th Cir. 20…

See § 1252(b)(1); Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 436-37 (5th Cir.2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir.2006) (second alteration in original) (quoting Rodriguez-Silva v. INS, 242 F.3d 243, 246, 247 (5th Cir.2001)). 13 . 462 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.2006). 14 .

Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir. 2004)); see also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (“[D]iscretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.”).

See, e.g., Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 467 (5th Cir. 2005) (relating to § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)); Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549 , 552 n.4 (5th Cir. 1997) (relating to §§ 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), 1252(a)(1)(G)(ii)); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 299 (5th Cir. 2005) (relating to § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)); Ahmed v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 433, 435 (5th Cir. 2006) (relating to § 1227(a)(1)(B)).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

“When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

DISCUSSION Where, as here, “the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

“When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

“When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

“When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the 2 Case: 20-60754 Document: 00516274577 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2022 No. 20-60754 decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

“When . . . the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) (holding petitioner failed to raise due-process claim).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006); but see Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that § 1252(a)(2)(C) bars review of the decision to deny a continuance).

However, “[w]hen, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).

However, “[w]hen, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Raymundo-Lima v. Lynch, 661 F. App’x 272 , 273- 74 (5th Cir. 2016).

Generally, this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for continuance, See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Id,; see also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (“When ... the BIA affirms the [IJ’s decision] and relies on the reasons set forth in the [IJ] ’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the [I J] as well as the decision of the BIA.”).

The Second Circuit thus unanimously rejected the petitioners’ constitutional challenges and “join[ed] every circuit that ha[d] considered the issue in concluding that the Program [did] not violate Equal Protection guarantees.” Id.; see Malik v. Gonzales, 213 F. App’x 173 , 174–75 (4th Cir. 2007); Kandamar v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 65 , 72–74 (1st Cir. 2006); Zafar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006); Hadayat v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 659 , 664–65 (7th Cir. 20…

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

To the extent that Raymundo-Lima contends that the BIA’s failure to exercise its discretion to reopen the removal proceedings sua sponte violated his right to due process, this court has repeatedly held that “discretionary relief from removal ... is not a liberty or property right that requires due process pro *274 tection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006).

STANDARD OF REVIEW On petition for review of the BIA’s order, we examine “the BIA’s decision and only consider the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the BIA.” Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861, 863 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (“When ... the BIA affirms the [IJ’s decision] and relies on the reasons set forth in the [IJ] ’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the [IJ] as well as the decision of the BIA.”).

Insofar as Castillo argues that we retain jurisdiction because the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief violated his constitutional due process rights by denying him a hearing on the merits of his cancellation of removal application, Castillo received a full and fair immigration hearing and “discretionary relief from removal ... is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006).

Insofar as Reyes-Bonilla argues that the BIA violated his due process rights by failing to consider the facts and circumstances of his case in determining whether to sua sponte reopen the removal proceedings, “discretionary relief from removal ... is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006).

We have “repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006); Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550-51 (5th Cir.2006).

This court “has repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. *185 2006); see also Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550-51 (5th Cir.2006).

“This circuit has repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Assaad, 378 F.3d at 475 (noting that failure to receive discretionary relief does not amount to the deprivation of a liberty interest).

We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s implicit decision to deny Velazquez-Dias’s motion for continuance. 1 See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F. 3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s implicit decision to deny Velazquez-Dias’s motion for continuance. 1 See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006). ‘When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the *250 BIA.” Id.

We have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s implicit decision to deny Velazquez-Dias’s motion for continuance. 1 See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F. 3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006).

According to PerezMacedo, her ineffective assistance claim was cognizable because she had a due process right under the Fifth Amendment to a fair hearing in her immigration proceedings. “[D]iscretionary relief from removal ... is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006); accord Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475 (5th Cir.2004). “[W]hen there is no due process right to the ultimate relief sou…

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006); see Wang, 569 F.3d at 536 . 9 .

Standard of Review “When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2003)).

“When, as here, the BIA affirms the immigration judge and relies on the reasons set forth in the immigration judge’s decision, this court reviews the decision of the immigration judge as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006).

“When, as here, the BIA affirms the [IJ] and relied on the reasons set forth in the [IJ’s] decision, this court reviews the decision of the [IJ] as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006).

“When, as here, the *936 BIA affirms the [IJ] and relies on the reasons set forth in the [I J’s] decision, this court reviews the decision of the [IJ] as well as the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir.2006) (citation omitted).

“This circuit has repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006).

“This circuit has repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.” Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006).

App’x 351, 352 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Because Nyika had no liberty interest in adjustment of status, there can be no due process violation.”); see also Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (“This circuit has repeatedly held that discretionary relief from removal, including an application for an adjustment of status, is not a liberty or property right that requires due process protection.”); Vasylchenko v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. 3:2…

Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting that in Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005), the Fifth Circuit rejected Onyinkwa and concluding that the court did have “jurisdiction to review the immigration judge's decision to deny Ahmed's motion for a continuance.”). it cannot be utilized as . . . a springboard to adjudicate matters foreign to the question of the legality of custody.” Pierre v. United States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1976…