Naser v. Gonzales

123 F. App'x 624
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 24, 2005
Docket04-60342
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 F. App'x 624 (Naser 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
Naser v. Gonzales, 123 F. App'x 624 (5th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Hatem Naser petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), (ii) and, therefore, statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status and removable. He has also moved to expedite our ruling on that petition. Naser argues that his checking the “citizen or national” box on two 1-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the purpose of securing *625 private employment was an insufficient basis on which to find him inadmissible. He further argues that the BIA’s decision to utilize its summary affirmance procedures was inappropriate in his case.

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that Naser had not borne his burden of showing that he was “clearly and beyond doubt” not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A). The issue whether Naser is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) is pretermitted in light of the determination that substantial evidence supported the finding that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Finally, we reject Naser’s argument that we must review the BIA’s use of its streamlined review process. See Garciar-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir.2003).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

Castro v. Attorney General of United States
671 F.3d 356 (Third Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naser-v-gonzales-ca5-2005.