Abdul Razzak Kanjiani v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 18-11171 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11171 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A088-662-707 ABDUL RAZZAK KANJIANI, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 7, 2018) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, NEWSOM and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Abdul Razzak Kanjiani, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the decision affirming an order that removed him from the United States. The Case: 18-11171 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Page: 2 of 2 Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the findings of the immigration judge that Kanjiani was ineligible for asylum because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, he was not credible, and he failed to establish a well-founded fear of future religious persecution as a Shia Muslim. We dismiss Kanjiani’s petition. We lack jurisdiction to review Kanjiani’s petition for review. Because Kanjiani conceded that he was removable for committing a crime relating to controlled substances, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and for committing an aggravated felony, id. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of removal against him. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Although we retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law,” id. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Kanjiani’s challenges to the adverse credibility determination and to the weight given to his corroborating evidence are “insufficient to state a legal claim over which we have jurisdiction,” Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1253 (11th Cir. 2014). Kanjiani also contests the finding that his conviction for selling methylenedioxypyrovalerone qualifies as a particularly serious crime, but we will not consider an issue that the Board declined to address on appeal. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We DISMISS Kanjiani’s petition for review. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
