Chowdhury v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

Chowdhury v. Gonzales

187 F. App'x 417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 29, 2006

Docket05-60316

StatusUnpublished

This text of 187 F. App'x 417 (Chowdhury v. Gonzales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chowdhury v. Gonzales, 187 F. App'x 417 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Faruque A. Chowdhury seeks a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) January 14, 2005, order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and denying a continuance pending the adjudication of his labor certification application, as well as of the BIA’s March 16, 2005, order denying his motion to reconsider. Because the petition for review is timely only as to the March 16, 2005, order, we have jurisdiction over that order only. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).

Chowdhury has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the BIA’s part in connection with the denial of his motion to reconsider. His argument that the motion automatically tolled his voluntary-departure period is without merit. See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 389-90 (5th Cir.2006). His constitutional challenge to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), under which he was required to register and which registry triggered the instant removal proceedings, is similarly without merit. See Lakhani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 350, 354 (5th Cir.2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 345, 348-49 (5th Cir.2006); see also Sewani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 285, 287 (5th Cir.2006).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Faruque A. Chowdhury seeks a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) January 14, 2005, order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and denying a continuance pending the adjudication of his labor certification application, as well as of the BIA’s March 16, 2005, order denying his motion to reconsider. Because the petition for review is timely only as to the March 16, 2005, order, we have jurisdiction over that order only. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).

Chowdhury has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the BIA’s part in connection with the denial of his motion to reconsider. His argument that the motion automatically tolled his voluntary-departure period is without merit. See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 389-90 (5th Cir.2006). His constitutional challenge to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), under which he was required to register and which registry triggered the instant removal proceedings, is similarly without merit. See Lakhani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 350, 354 (5th Cir.2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 345, 348-49 (5th Cir.2006); see also Sewani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 285, 287 (5th Cir.2006).

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 F. App'x 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-gonzales-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack