Fateh Judhani v. Eric Holder, Jr., 538 F. App'x 562

Petitioners Fateh Judhani, his wife Nazlin, and daughter Soniya sought review of the BIA’s affirmance of an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of a continuance and denial of their motion to reopen (construed as a motion to remand).
Petitioners argued the BIA applied the wrong legal standard, failed to consider evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, and violated due process.
The government contended petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the BIA.
The Fifth Circuit considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision given exhaustion rules and separately reviewed the continuance denial for abuse of discretion.
The court found many claims unexhausted and therefore dismissed those portions for lack of jurisdiction, but retained review of the continuance denial and affirmed on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners exhausted administrative remedies so court has jurisdiction	Judhanis claimed BIA decision violated due process and should be reviewed	Government: petitioners failed to raise these issues before the BIA in a motion for reconsideration, so claims are unexhausted	Court: Most claims unexhausted; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether BIA abused discretion affirming IJ’s denial of a continuance	Judhanis argued they showed good cause meriting continuance	Government: IJ/BIA acted within discretion; no good cause shown	Court: Denial reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed — no good cause shown
Whether failure to consider ineffective-assistance evidence violated due process	Judhanis argued BIA/IJ ignored counsel-related evidence and applied wrong standard	Government: Issues could/should have been raised first to BIA; not properly exhausted	Court: Claim could have been raised before BIA; treated as unexhausted and not reviewable here
Whether BIA erred in denying motion to remand based on credibility findings	Judhanis contended credibility was improperly assessed and remand warranted	Government: BIA reasonably found claims not credible	Court: Challenges to BIA’s credibility determinations were unexhausted; court lacked jurisdiction to review

Said v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 668 (5th Cir.) (failure to exhaust deprives court of jurisdiction)
Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir.) (exhaustion required for judicial review)
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314 (5th Cir.) (what constitutes an available administrative remedy and how to exhaust)
Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383 (5th Cir.) (cannot evade exhaustion by labeling claim as due process)
Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.) (court may review continuance denials)
Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678 (5th Cir.) (standard for IJ to grant continuance is good cause; abuse-of-discretion review)
Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173 (5th Cir.) (jurisdictional limits when no separate petition challenges denial of reconsideration)
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S.) (jurisdictional principles regarding administrative exhaustion)