IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60138
Conference Calendar
__________________
TAREK ELAGAMY,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
A-26 440 666
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tarek Elagamy petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion requesting that
he be allowed to reopen his case in order to move for a
suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2). To
succeed in a motion to reopen, the alien must establish prima
facie eligibility for the relief sought. See I.N.S. v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Even if the alien has made out a prima
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-60138
-2-
facie case for relief, the BIA has the discretion to deny a
motion to reopen. Id. This court reviews the BIA's denial of a
motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Id.
Elagamy contends that had the BIA granted his motion to
reopen, he would have established that his deportation should
have been suspended pursuant to § 1254(a)(2). Section 1254(a)(2)
states that the Attorney General may suspend deportation in the
case of an alien who, among other requirements, "has been
physically present in the United States for a continuous period
of not less than ten years immediately following the commission
of an act . . . constituting a ground for deportation . . . ."
Elagamy argues that he "committed" his deportation-worthy
violation in 1983, when he lied to immigration officials about
whether he resided with his wife, rather than in 1986 when he was
convicted of the offense. In Brown v. I.N.S, however, this court
dismissed the petitioner's request for suspension of deportation
pursuant to § 1254(a)(2) because he had not been in the United
States for ten years since the date of his conviction of a
deportation-worthy crime. 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1988).
"[I]t is the firm rule of this circuit that one panel may not
overrule the decisions of another." United States v. Taylor, 933
F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 883 (1991).
Accordingly, Elagamy's petition for review is without arguable
merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because this petition is frivolous, it
is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.