United States 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Reports

Unpublished

MALIK v. GONZALES, 05-2022 (4th Cir. 1-11-2007) MUHAMMED
ARIF MALIK, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney
General, Respondent. No. 05-2022. United States Court of
Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 17, 2006. Decided:
January 11, 2007.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the
issuing court.] On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals. (A77-636-809)

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anser Ahmad, AHMAD LAW OFFICES, P.C., Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, John W. Sippel, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this
circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Muhammed Arif Malik, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the
decision of the immigration judge ordering Malik’s removal
to Pakistan.

Malik first alleges that his counsel below rendered
ineffective assistance of counsel in administrative
proceedings before the immigration judge. As Malik did not
raise this issue before the Board, he has failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies, as required by 8 U.S.C.A.
§ 1252(d)(1) (West 2005). Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to review the claim. See Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n. 3 (4th Cir. 2004).

Next, Malik asserts that his constitutional rights to equal
protection and due process were violated. He contends that
his prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security
resulted from his registration pursuant to the National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System (“NSEERS”), 8
U.S.C. §§ 1303, 1305 (2000), and that a
decision to prosecute based on alienage, ethnicity, or
religion violates his constitutional rights. We conclude
that this claim entitles Malik to no relief. Cf. Ahmed v.
Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that
any impact of NSEERS on Department of Homeland Security’s
decision to initiate removal proceedings did not violate
alien’s equal protection rights); Zafar v. United States
Atty. Gen., 426 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2005)
(“Petitioners’ equal protection rights were not violated by
being required to be registered in the National Security
Entry-Exit Registration System. . . .”). Further, under 8
U.S.C.A. § 1252(g) (West 2005), courts have no
jurisdiction “to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of
any alien arising from the decision or action by the
Attorney General to commence proceedings . . . under this
chapter.” See also Reno v. American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 488 (1999)
(holding that § 1252(g) deprives federal courts of
jurisdiction over claims of selective enforcement of
immigration laws).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED