Haroon vs. Gonzales (5th Cir. 2006)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (July 12, 2006)

Docket number: 05-60926

Not Published
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/haroon-vs-gonzales-20926517
Id. vLex: VLEX-20926517

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Mohammed Subhan, Petitioner, v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent., 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004)

U.S. Code - Title 8: Aliens and Nationality - 8 USC 1255 - Sec. 1255. Adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Yu Zhao, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General, Respondent., 404 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2005)

U.S. Supreme Court - Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Mushtaq Ahmed, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. Gonzales, United States Attorney General, Respondent., 447 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2006)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

July 12, 2006

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

No. 05-60926

Summary Calendar

MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON

Petitioner

v. ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 005 394

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Pakistani citizen Muhammad Ali Haroon appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceeding and the denial of his motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to address the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 , 405 (1995). Haroon contends that the BIA erred by denying his motion to reopen the proceeding in order to address whether the Immigration * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Judge (IJ) erred by denying Haroon's request for a continuance because he was eligible to seek adjustment of his status to lawful permanent resident alien, pursuant to 8U.S.C. § 1255(i).

Subsequent to his hearing before the IJ, the Seventh Circuit decided Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004), and Haroon received a labor certification from the Department of Labor, which enabled him to submit an application for an I-140 visa.

We review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen under the abuse-of-discretion standard, Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 302-03 (5th Cir. 2005), and we find no abuse of discretion. We have rejected the analysis of our sister circuit in Subhan. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Haroon has not shown that an immigrant visa is immediately available to him, he therefore has not demonstrated that he is eligible to be considered for relief under § 1255(i), see id. at 438, or that his case warranted a continuance. See id. at 439.

PETITION DENIED.