Butt v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 9, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-61097
Summary Calendar
AMJAD KAMAL BUTT,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 008 112
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Amjad Kamal Butt petitions for review of the decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We review the decision of
the immigration judge as the BIA relied upon it in its decision.
Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We review
factual conclusions for substantial evidence and questions of law
de novo. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.
1996).
Butt first challenges the validity of the notice to appear
because it was signed by an “Interim District Director.” Butt
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-61097
-2-
argues that Interim District Directors are not authorized to
issue notices to appear because they are not listed in 8 C.F.R.
§ 239.1. This argument is meritless. The regulation allows for
another officer, such as the Interim District Director in Butt’s
case, to act in the “capacity” of the District Director until the
position is permanently filled. See 8 C.F.R. § 239.1.
Butt also argues that he has been denied equal protection
and that he was the victim of selective enforcement. These
claims apparently stem from Butt’s registration with the National
Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), which permits
the Department of Homeland Security to monitor aliens “who may
present elevated national security concerns” because they hail
from countries associated with active terrorist organizations.
See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 679 (5th Cir. 2006); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1303. To the extent Butt is challenging the constitutionality
of the NSEERS program itself, such a challenge is meritless. See
Ali, 440 F.3d at 681 n.4. Any selective enforcement claim also
is without merit. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 488 (1999).
Butt argues that immigration officials failed to comply with
an internal memorandum that suggested removal proceedings should
not be initiated against aliens similarly situated to Butt. Even
if Butt had produced a copy of this memorandum, which he has not,
such internal personnel guidelines do not establish judicially
No. 05-61097
-3-
enforceable rights. See Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984,
989 (5th Cir. 2000).
Butt also challenges the denial of his motion for a
continuance to allow additional time for processing of his wife’s
pending application for labor certification. Both the
immigration judge and the BIA determined that a pending
application for labor certification filed by Butt’s wife did not
constitute good cause to continue the removal proceedings. This
determination was not an abuse of discretion. See Ahmed v.
Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.