MOHAMMAD AL BATTAT V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-70500 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 16 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMMAD KHALEEL AL BATTAT, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-70500 Agency No. A079-638-403 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2016** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Mohammad Khaleel Al Battat, a native of Palestine and citizen of Jordan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), as well as his petition for special rule cancellation of removal pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition. 1. The BIA held that Al Battat failed to appeal the merits of the IJ’s determinations that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief, and that his asylum claim was time-barred. On appeal, Al Battat concedes that his asylum claim was time-barred, and he offers no challenge to the BIA’s determination that any arguments about withholding of removal or CAT relief were not preserved for appeal. Any arguments related to those forms of relief are thus unexhausted, and we lack jurisdiction to review them. See Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014). 2. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that Al Battat failed to corroborate his claim of spousal mental abuse and, therefore, affirmed denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal. Al Battat does not argue that such corroboration was unnecessary; he states only that he does not know why the requested corroboration was unavailable. Al Battat has thus failed to demonstrate that the record compels the conclusion that corroborating evidence was 2 unavailable, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), and he offers no other basis for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.
