Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0195-01.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

Mian Ihsan ULLAH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-61105
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 11, 2006.
    William F. Harmeyer, William F. Harmeyer & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, John S. Hogan, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, 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 KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mian Ihsan Ullah petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) November 1, 2005, order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding him removable and denying a continuance pending the adjudication of his labor certification application. Ullah argues that the denial of a continuance violated his rights under the Legal Immigration Family Equity (LIFE) Act, principles of equal protection, and the Due Process Clause. He further argues that the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) violates the Equal Protection Clause.

We find neither an abuse of discretion nor a due process violation in connection with the denial of a continuance pending resolution of Ullah’s application for labor certification. Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir.2006); Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680-81 (5th Cir.2006). Ullah’s constitutional challenge to the NSEERS is similarly without merit. Ali, 440 F.3d at 680-82.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      . Codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).