United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61018
Summary Calendar
MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 996 482
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Muhammad Sarfraz, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider.
Sarfraz argues that (1) the immigration judge (IJ) abused
her discretion in denying his motion for a continuance while his
labor certification was being adjudicated; (2) the National
Security Entry/Exit Registration System (NSEERS) program was
unconstitutional, and evidence concerning his removability that
was obtained pursuant to his registration under the NSEERS
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-61018
-2-
program should have been excluded from his removal proceedings
because it was unconstitutionally obtained from him; and (3) the
BIA abused its discretion in denying a claim concerning Sarfraz’s
use of his mother’s labor certification for adjustment of status
that it had construed as a motion to reopen. The BIA declined to
consider arguments similar to Sarfraz’s first two arguments in
its denial of Sarfraz’s motion to reconsider because it already
had considered the arguments in its affirmance of the IJ’s
decision, and the BIA denied the third argument on the merits.
Sarfraz does not address any of the BIA’s stated reasons for
denying these claims. Accordingly, he has abandoned any
challenge to the BIA’s decision. See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d
28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995).
Sarfraz also argues for the first time in his petition for
review that his due process rights were violated when the IJ
determined that he was eligible for voluntary departure and that
his case was unfairly treated differently than his brother’s
case. He also contends that he is entitled to reopen his case
because of his marriage to a United States citizen and because of
the approval of his I-140 application after the BIA denied his
motion to reconsider. However, because Sarfraz did not exhaust
his administrative remedies concerning these issues by first
raising them before the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to
consider them. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2001).
No. 05-61018
-3-
Sarfraz’s petition for review is DENIED. The Government’s
motions for summary affirmance and for dismissal of the case are
DENIED as moot.