Case ID: f-appx_187/html/0417-01.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

Faruque A. CHOWDHURY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60316.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 29, 2006.
    Frank Guerra, Sugar Land, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Jennifer Paisner, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Faruque A. Chowdhury seeks a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) January 14, 2005, order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and denying a continuance pending the adjudication of his labor certification application, as well as of the BIA’s March 16, 2005, order denying his motion to reconsider. Because the petition for review is timely only as to the March 16, 2005, order, we have jurisdiction over that order only. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995); Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).

Chowdhury has not demonstrated any abuse of discretion on the BIA’s part in connection with the denial of his motion to reconsider. His argument that the motion automatically tolled his voluntary-departure period is without merit. See Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387, 389-90 (5th Cir.2006). His constitutional challenge to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS), under which he was required to register and which registry triggered the instant removal proceedings, is similarly without merit. See Lakhani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 350, 354 (5th Cir.2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 345, 348-49 (5th Cir.2006); see also Sewani v. Gonzales, 162 Fed.Appx. 285, 287 (5th Cir.2006).

The petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.