Filed: Mar. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60879 Summary Calendar MOHAMMED IMTIAZ SULTAN, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A72 450 217 August 21, 1997 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mohammed Imtiaz Sultan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal, affirming the denial of a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-60879 Summary Calendar MOHAMMED IMTIAZ SULTAN, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A72 450 217 August 21, 1997 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mohammed Imtiaz Sultan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal, affirming the denial of as..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60879
Summary Calendar
MOHAMMED IMTIAZ SULTAN,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A72 450 217
August 21, 1997
Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammed Imtiaz Sultan petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal, affirming the
denial of asylum and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed
the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision
is supported by substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v.
INS,
78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). Sultan further seeks review
of the Immigration Judge’s refusal to grant voluntary departure.
*
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Consideration of the issue, however, is barred due to Sultan’s
failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Rodriguez v.
INS,
9 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2