United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60926
Summary Calendar
MUHAMMAD ALI HAROON
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 005 394
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pakistani citizen Muhammad Ali Haroon appeals from the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his
removal proceeding and the denial of his motion to reconsider the
denial of the motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to address
the denial of the motion to reconsider. See Stone v. INS, 514
U.S. 386, 405 (1995).
Haroon contends that the BIA erred by denying his motion to
reopen the proceeding in order to address whether the Immigration
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60926
-2-
Judge (IJ) erred by denying Haroon’s request for a continuance
because he was eligible to seek adjustment of his status to
lawful permanent resident alien, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).
Subsequent to his hearing before the IJ, the Seventh Circuit
decided Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2004), and
Haroon received a labor certification from the Department of
Labor, which enabled him to submit an application for an I-140
visa.
We review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen under the
abuse-of-discretion standard, Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295,
302-03 (5th Cir. 2005), and we find no abuse of discretion. We
have rejected the analysis of our sister circuit in Subhan. See
Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437-38 (5th Cir. 2006). Because
Haroon has not shown that an immigrant visa is immediately
available to him, he therefore has not demonstrated that he is
eligible to be considered for relief under § 1255(i), see id. at
438, or that his case warranted a continuance. See id. at 439.
PETITION DENIED.