Dada v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

Dada v. Gonzales

207 F. App'x 425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

Docket06-60180

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 F. App'x 425 (Dada 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

Dada v. Gonzales, 207 F. App'x 425 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Samson Taiwo Dada is a citizen of Nigeria who was admitted into the United States in April 1998 and remained in the country beyond the authorized period. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Dada to be removed but granted his request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Dada filed a motion to reopen on the ground that he was seeking adjustment of status, and he sought leave to withdraw his request for voluntary departure. The BIA denied Dada’s motion to reopen on the ground that, because he failed to leave the United States by the imposed deadline for voluntary departure, he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).

In this petition for review, Dada argues that the BIA erred by (1) finding him to be statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under § 1229c(d) and (2) denying his motion to reopen despite the IJ’s denial of Dada’s request for a continuance. The BIA’s interpretation of the applicable statutes rendering Dada ineligible was reason *426 able. See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 389-91 (5th Cir.2006). The IJ did not abuse its discretion by denying Dada’s request for a continuance. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir.2006). Dada’s arguments challenging the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s affirmance of that decision are not cognizable within his petition for review, which was directed at the BIA’s denial of Dada’s motion to reopen. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.2006).

Dada has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, his 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Samson Taiwo Dada is a citizen of Nigeria who was admitted into the United States in April 1998 and remained in the country beyond the authorized period. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Dada to be removed but granted his request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Dada filed a motion to reopen on the ground that he was seeking adjustment of status, and he sought leave to withdraw his request for voluntary departure. The BIA denied Dada’s motion to reopen on the ground that, because he failed to leave the United States by the imposed deadline for voluntary departure, he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).

In this petition for review, Dada argues that the BIA erred by (1) finding him to be statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under § 1229c(d) and (2) denying his motion to reopen despite the IJ’s denial of Dada’s request for a continuance. The BIA’s interpretation of the applicable statutes rendering Dada ineligible was reason *426 able. See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 389-91 (5th Cir.2006). The IJ did not abuse its discretion by denying Dada’s request for a continuance. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir.2006). Dada’s arguments challenging the IJ’s decision and the BIA’s affirmance of that decision are not cognizable within his petition for review, which was directed at the BIA’s denial of Dada’s motion to reopen. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.2006).

Dada has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303-04 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, his 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)

207 F. App'x 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dada-v-gonzales-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack