Rasool v. Ashcroft , 81 F. App'x 515 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 2, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-61090
Summary Calendar
FAIZ RASOOL,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A72-021-932
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Faiz Rasool, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this
court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”)
affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final order of
removal. While Rasool concedes that he is removable, he argues
that the IJ erred in denying his contested motion to terminate the
removal proceedings to permit him to pursue his application for
adjustment of status with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
On a petition for review of a BIA decision, we review factual
findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). “We
accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration
statutes unless the record reveals compelling evidence that the
BIA’s interpretation is incorrect.” Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299,
302 (5th Cir. 1997). While we normally only review the decision of
the BIA, when, as in this case, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision
without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. Id.The BIA has consistently held that “so long as the enforcement
officials of the Service choose to initiate proceedings against an
alien and to prosecute those proceedings to a conclusion, the
immigration judge and the Board must order deportation if the
evidence supports a finding of deportability on the ground
charged.” In re Yazdani, 17 I. & N. Dec. 626, 630 (BIA 1981); see
also In re Singh, 21 I. & N. Dec. 427, 435 (BIA 1996); In re Wong,
13 I. & N. Dec. 701, 703 (BIA 1971). Rasool’s argument to the
contrary is without merit. As the IJ did not have discretionary
authority to terminate the removal proceedings against Rasool, he
did not err in denying Rasool’s motion to terminate the removal
proceedings. See Lopez-Telles v. INS, 564 F.2d 1302, 1304 (9th
Cir. 1977); Panova-Bohannan v. Ashcroft, 74 Fed. Appx. 424, 425-26
(5th Cir. 2003)(unpublished).
Rasool also argues that the IJ erred in denying his
2
application for voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to
consider this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); See Eyoum v.
INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997).
Rasool’s petition for review is DENIED.
G:\opin-sc\02-21355.opn.wpd 3