Iqbal v. Holder, (2nd Cir. 2011)

Text

---

10-5152-ag

Iqbal v. Holder

BIA

Schoppert, IJ

A096 427 064

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER

IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 1st day of December, two thousand eleven.

PRESENT:

JON O. NEWMAN,

ROBERT A. KATZMANN,

DENNY CHIN,

Circuit Judges.

ANDY IQBAL,

Petitioner,

v. 10-5152-ag

NAC

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

FOR PETITIONER: H. Raymond Fasano, New York, New

York.

FOR RESPONDENT: Tony West, Assistant Attorney

General; Ernesto H. Molina, Jr.,

Assistant Director; Jeffery R.

Leist, Attorney, Office of

Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Andy Iqbal, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of a November 26, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the July 6, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge ("IJ") Douglas Schoppert, which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). In re Andy Iqbal, No. A096 427 064 (B.I.A. Nov. 26, 2010), aff'g No. A096 427 064 (Immig. Ct.

N.Y. City July 6, 2009). We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

As his sole argument, Iqbal contends for the first time that the agency failed to analyze his claim for CAT relief separately from his claim for withholding of removal.

Because he did not raise this argument before the BIA, it is unexhausted, and we decline to review it. See Lin Zhong v.

U.S. Dep't of Justice, 480 F.3d 104, 123 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that, while not jurisdictional, the judicially imposed issue exhaustion requirement is mandatory).

For the foregoing reason, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

---