Elagamy v. INS ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 97-60211
Summary Calendar
__________________
TAREK ELAGAMY,
Petitioner,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A26 440 666
--------------------
November 29, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tarek Elagamy has filed a petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen deportation proceedings. Elagamy argues that the BIA
erred in determining that he was not entitled to suspension of
deportation because he had been served with an order to show
cause prior to acquiring ten years of physical presence in the
United States following his conviction for knowingly making a
false statement under oath in connection with a visa application.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-60211
-2-
Specifically, Elagamy contends that: (1) the BIA incorrectly
decided In re N–J-B, Int. Dec. 3309 (BIA 1997) so that the stop-
time rule of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), as amended by the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”), does not
end an alien’s physical presence with the service of an order to
show cause; (2) even if In re N-J-B was correctly decided, it
does not prevent him from beginning a new residence period after
the Order to Show Cause has been issued; and (3) the BIA erred
in retroactively applying the IIRIRA’s stop-time rule to his
case.
This court reviews the BIA’s legal determinations de novo.
See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
Elagamy does not provide any analysis or cite to any legal
authority in support of his first argument. Accordingly, this
argument is deemed abandoned. See American States Ins. Co. v.
Bailey, 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)(only issues presented
and argued in the brief are addressed on appeal).
Elagamy’s second argument was rejected in McBride v. INS,
238 F.3d 371, 376-77 (5th Cir. 2001), which upheld a BIA ruling
providing that the stop-time rule prohibits the restarting of the
accrual time-period after deportation proceedings have begun.
that the issuance of a show-cause order tolls the physical-
presence period in a suspension-of-deportation case. Elagamy’s
contention that the stop-time provisions should not be
retroactively applied to his case has likewise been foreclosed by
No. 97-60211
-3-
Gonzalez-Torres v. INS, 213 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2000), in
which we held that the IIRIRA’s tolling provision applies to
show-cause orders in deportation proceedings, like in Elagamy’s
case, that were pending at the time the IIRIRA was enacted.
Elagamy’s petition for review is DENIED.