United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61187
Summary Calendar
ABDUL KARIM,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A79 011 669)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Abdul Karim, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals ‘(BIA) denial of his
motion for reconsideration of his removal proceedings. Karim
argues that the BIA erred when it denied his motion for
reconsideration, in which he sought an adjustment of status based
on a pending visa petition for alien worker status.
We apply an abuse of discretion standard when we review
motions to reconsider immigration proceedings. Singh v. Gonzales,
436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). The BIA did not abuse its
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
discretion in denying Karim’s motion for reconsideration, as the
record reflects that Karim had not supplied the BIA with the
requisite documentation to obtain an adjustment of status. See
United States v. Ryan-Webster, 363 F.3d 353, 355 (4th Cir. 2003);
8 U.S.C. §§ 1153(b), 1255(a).
Karim contends that his due process rights were violated
because the BIA rejected his eligibility for an adjustment of
status. We review due process challenges arising from deportation
proceedings de novo. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir.
1997). Given Karim’s failure to comply with the statutory
prerequisites for obtaining adjustment of status on his alien
worker petition, he cannot show that his constitutional rights were
violated by the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider his
removal proceedings. See Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471, 475
(5th Cir. 2004).
Karim has filed a motion to remand his petition to the BIA for
reconsideration based on the approval of his I-140 petition.
Although Karim has also attached an I-485 form, he fails to provide
any evidence that the form has been approved. The BIA was not
privy to these documents, and, moreover, Karim still has not
satisfied the final requisite steps for obtaining adjustment of
status. See Ryan-Webster, 353 F.3d at 355-56.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION FOR REMAND DENIED.
2