Abdirahman Ahmed v. Robert M. Wilkinson, No. 20-1848 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. Petitioner waived any challenge to the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief by failing to advance any argument that the agency erred in denying the relief; petitioner's other claims were either not exhausted or foreclosed by this circuit's precedents, and the petition for review is dismissed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-1848 ___________________________ Abdirahman Dayib Ahmed lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General of United States1 lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 27, 2021 Filed: February 1, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. 1 Robert M. Wilkinson has been appointed to serve as Acting Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). Abdirahman Dayib Ahmed, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), after the BIA reversed the immigration judge’s grant of cancellation of removal and remanded for further proceedings. After careful review, we conclude that Ahmed waived any challenge to the denial of asylum, withholding, or CAT relief because he failed to advance any argument that the agency erred in denying such relief. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). We further conclude that Ahmed failed to fully administratively exhaust the issues raised in his brief, and we therefore do not reach those arguments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Lasu v. Barr, 970 F.3d 960, 964-65 (8th Cir. 2020); Frango v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2006). In any event, we lack jurisdiction to review a challenge to his arrest, see Bah v. Cangemi, 548 F.3d 680, 683 n.3 (8th Cir. 2008), and his remaining arguments are either foreclosed by this court’s precedent, Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 985-86 (8th Cir. 2019), or not supported by the record. Accordingly, we dismiss the 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.
