Husain v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT August 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60502
Summary Calendar
RAZA HUSAIN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A38 882 172)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raza Husain, a citizen of Canada, became a legal permanent
resident of the United States in 1984. In 2001, an immigration
judge (IJ) ordered Husain removed to Canada pursuant to
§ 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), for having been convicted of an
aggravated felony firearms offense. The IJ denied Husain’s motion
for reconsideration and, in early 2002, the Board of Immigration
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion. In late 2002, the BIA
denied Husain’s motion to reopen or reconsider.
Husain apparently completed serving his felony-firearms
sentence in 2004. On 27 December 2004, Husain filed a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition seeking judicial review of his removal order. He
was removed to Canada in early 2005. In June 2005, the habeas
petition was transferred to this court pursuant to the Real ID Act
of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106(c), 119 Stat. 231, 311, to be
treated as a timely petition for review. See Rosales v. Bureau of
Immigration & Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir.
2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1055 (2006). The REAL ID Act
provides jurisdiction for this court to review Husain’s
constitutional claims and questions of law. Hernandez-Castillo v.
Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006).
Husain, proceeding pro se, contends the IJ violated his due
process rights by advising him that he was not entitled to
immigration relief, in particular to an adjustment of status under
8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). Husain further contends the BIA erred by
failing to correct the error on appeal and abused its discretion by
failing to reopen or reconsider its decision. Husain’s appeal to
the BIA did not to challenge the IJ’s alleged failure to advise him
correctly. Accordingly, the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ’s
decision without considering the issue.
2
Nor has Husain shown the IJ erred or violated his due process
rights by advising him that he was not entitled to immigration
relief, in particular relief under § 1255(a). 8 U.S.C. §
1255(i)(2)(B); see Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 435, 440 (5th
Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Husain has not shown the BIA abused its
discretion by denying his motion to reopen or reconsider. See Zhao
v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
3