Case ID: f-appx_564/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Muhammad Farhan Hanif KHAN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60243
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 18, 2014.
    Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Esq., Foster-quan, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Walter Bocchini, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Muhammad Farhan Hanif Khan has petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) refusing to reopen his immigration proceedings sua sponte so that he could pursue adjustment of status based on an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker filed by his prospective employer. Finding that the case did not present exceptional circumstances, the BIA denied the motion as untimely. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

Because the authority to reopen an immigration proceeding sua sponte is entirely discretionary, this court lacks jurisdiction to review a challenge to the BIA’s refusal to do so. Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir.2008) (citing Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248 (5th Cir.2004)). Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 253, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), cited by Khan, does not hold otherwise. See 558 U.S. at 251 n. 18, 130 S.Ct. 827; see also Ibarra-Gonzalez v. Holder, 542 Fed.Appx. 341, 341 (5th Cir.2013) (unpublished).

The respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and Khan’s petition for review is DISMISSED. See Ramos-Bonilla, 543 F.3d at 220. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.