No. 09-60588 Summary Calendar.United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
August 18, 2010.
Brian K. Bates, Reina, Bates Kowalski Immigration Law Group, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Briena Lorraine Strippoli, Esq., Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA No. A070 441 895.
Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:[*]
Abraham Nosa Osagiede, a native and citizen of Nigeria, has filed a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of the immigration judges (IJ’s) denial of his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
Osagiede argues that his deportation proceedings were fundamentally unfair and thus violated his right to due process because the failure of the Government to
Page 388
adjudicate his pending visa petition prevented him from seeking adjustment of status. However, because Osagiede has not exhausted this issue by raising it before the BIA, this court’s consideration of the issue is jurisdictionally barred. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Osagiede also has abandoned his argument before the BIA that his appeal should be held in abeyance until his appeal of his visa petition is resolved. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986).
Additionally, Osagiede argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and that he was entitled to withholding because he was subjected to government persecution based on his political views. However, Osagiede has not shown that any past persecution was on account of his political views or that there was a clear probability that he would be persecuted on account of his political views upon his return to Nigeria. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to that of the BIA and IJ. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007).
PETITION DENIED.
Page 237