Raza v. Gonzales , 197 F. App'x 328 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 31, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60447
Summary Calendar
MOHAMMAD ALI RAZA
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 554 614
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammad Ali Raza, a native and citizen of Pakistan,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to
deny his application for cancellation of removal. Raza argues
that the IJ’s denial of his motion for a continuance based on his
pending application for labor certification was inconsistent with
8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) because it was based on the Government’s
objection alone. He further contends that the BIA’s
determination that there was no good cause for a continuance
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60447
-2-
because of the uncertainty of his receiving the labor
certification or an employment-based immigrant visa was not
supported by the record.
The IJ adopted the Government’s argument that a continuance
would have been speculative. Raza’s timely application for labor
certification did not constitute good cause for a continuance
because the grant of the certification would have been only the
first step in a long, discretionary process. See Ahmed v.
Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the
denial of Raza’s motion for a continuance was supported by the
record and was not an abuse of discretion. See Patel v. INS, 803
F.2d 804, 806 (5th Cir. 1986).
Raza also argues for the first time in his petition for
review that the IJ’s denial of his motion for a continuance
violated his due process rights because he was prevented from
pursuing an adjustment of status under § 1255(i). Because Raza
has not exhausted his administrative remedies concerning this
issue by first raising it before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to
consider it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.
2001).
Raza’s petition for review is DENIED.