Saeed Ahmed v. Michael Mukasey, No. 07-1298 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1298 SAEED AHMED, Petitioner, versus MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, United States Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 31, 2008 Decided: May 20, 2008 Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Ethan B. Kanter, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffrey L. Menkin, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Saeed Ahmed, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying relief from removal. Though Ahmed challenges the denial of asylum, we note that the Board specifically upheld the IJ s finding that Ahmed s asylum application was untimely. Ahmed does not challenge the finding of untimeliness, and we note that regardless we are without jurisdiction to consider a such a challenge. See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(a)(3) (West 2005). With regard to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, we find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Ahmed was a member of a terrorist organization such that § he is barred from 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv) that (West relief. 2005); See 8 8 U.S.C.A. U.S.C.A. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) (West 2005); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2) (2007). Finally, we uphold the finding that Ahmed failed to qualify for the relief of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(4) (2007). We accordingly dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are - 2 - adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART - 3 -
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.
