United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60980
Summary Calendar
MAZEN JABER MAHMOUD AHMAD;
SUHAIR SAADO BANAT;
RAMI MAZEN JABER AHMED;
RAWAN MAZEN JABER AHMAD;
RUBA MAZEN JABER AHMAD,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S.
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 556 494
BIA No. A79 556 495
BIA No. A79 556 496
BIA No. A79 556 497
BIA No. A79 556 498
Before GARWOOD, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mazen Jaber Mahmoud Ahmad, his wife Suhair Saado Banat, and
their children (collectively, the Ahmads) petition this court for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying
their motion to reconsider a final order of removal. The Ahmads
contend that the immigration judge (IJ) abused his discretion in
denying a motion for a continuance because the Ahmads established
that their visa application should have been approved, rendering
visas “immediately available” to them as required by 8 U.S.C. §
1255(a)(3).
As an initial matter, the respondent asserts that we do not
have jurisdiction over the Ahmads’ petition for review under 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). This argument is foreclosed by this
court’s opinions in Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 302-03 (5th
Cir. 2005), and Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 466-70
(5th Cir. 2005).
This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider
under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Lara v.
Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000); Osucukwu v. INS, 744
F.2d 1136, 1141-42 (5th Cir. 1984). The Ahmads have not met this
standard. An alien is entitled to an adjustment of status at the
Attorney General’s discretion “if (1) the alien makes an
application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to
receive an immigration visa and is admissible to the United States
for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately
available to [the alien] at the time his application is filed.” 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a). Even if it is assumed that the Ahmads’ visa
2
application was approved, rendering them eligible to receive visas,
they have not established that immigrant visas are immediately
available to them as third preference visa holders. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1153(a)(3). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1). The IJ therefore
did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion for continuance,
because the Ahmads have not shown good cause. See Witter v. INS,
113 F.3d 549, 555 (5th Cir. 1997); Diarra v. Gonzales, 137 F.
App’x. 627, 632 n.5 (5th Cir. June 2, 2005) (No. 04-60097)
(unpublished). Consequently, the Ahmads’ petition for review is
DENIED.
3