United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 25, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60075
Summary Calendar
MOHAMAD MONZER TEMSAH,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A94 024 287
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohamad Monzer Temsah has petitioned for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his motion
to reopen. The respondent has moved for summary affirmance in
lieu of filing an appellate brief, for an extension of time to
file a brief in the event that summary affirmance is denied, and
to strike a portion of Temsah’s brief containing exhibits not
included in the administrative record. The motions to strike and
for summary affirmance are DENIED. The motion for an extension
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-60075
-2-
of time to file a brief is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY. The
respondent’s duty to submit an appellate brief is hereby WAIVED.
Temsah contends that he in fact filed a timely motion to
reopen. He has presented no evidence establishing that he filed
a motion in a timely manner. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
Temsah does not repeat his assertions, made before the BIA, that
he is entitled to relief under the Convention Against Torture,
and any such claims are therefore deemed abandoned. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Temsah maintains that the BIA erred in denying his motion to
reopen based on his failure to depart voluntarily as ordered by
the immigration judge. The BIA concluded that Temsah was not
entitled to adjustment of status because he had not voluntarily
departed on the date set forth by the BIA in its original order.
Temsah has not shown that the BIA was incorrect in its
conclusion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b, 1229c(d). Temsah also
asserts that the immigration judge’s rulings and statements were
confusing. This court does not review the decisions of the
immigration judge. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Temsah has not established that the BIA abused its
discretion in denying his motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 322 (1992). Consequently, the petition for review
is DENIED.