IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60847

Summary Calendar

OBINNA IKENNA EZEOKOLI,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 036 429

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Obinna Ikenna Ezeokoli, a citizen and native of Nigeria, petitions this

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal from the final order of removal of the immigration judge

(IJ) denying his motion for continuance. Ezeokoli argues that the BIA and IJ

erred by denying his motion for continuance pending the resolution of his wife’s

second I-130 petition on his behalf. He requests that the final order of removal

be vacated and that the case be remanded to allow him to be heard after the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 8, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-60847 Document: 00512048312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2012
No. 11-60847

UnitedStatesCitizenandImmigrationServices (USCIS) rules onthe I-130 petition.

During the pendency ofthe petition for review, the USCIS denied the I-130

petition. Ezeokoli has acknowledged that he and his wife are now separated,

making relief though an I-130 petition unavailable to Ezeokoli. The relief

requested by Ezeokoli that we have the power to grant, a remand to the IJ

pending the resolution of the I-130 petition, is no longer meaningful because the

I-130 petition has now been denied. See Qureshi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 985, 988

(7th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, there is no meaningful relief that we can grant

Ezeokoli on his petition for review, and the petition for review is dismissed as

moot. See id. at 988-90; Bayou Liberty Ass’n, Inc. v. United States Army Corps

of Eng’rs, 217 F.3d 393, 398 (5th Cir. 2000).

While the petition for review was pending, Ezeokoli filed an I-360 petition

in which he alleged that he was an abused spouse and sought relief under the

Violence Against Women Act. Ezeokoli has moved to hold his petition for review

in abeyance pending the resolution of that petition or, alternatively, to remand

his case to the BIA. Citing to Becerra-Jimenez v. INS, 829 F.2d 996 (10th Cir.

1987), he asserts that a remand to the BIA is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2347(c)(2) to allow the agency to hear his new evidence. He alternatively

argues that, in the interests of judicial efficiency, this court should hold the

petition for review in abeyance until his I-360 petition is adjudicated.

Since the issuance ofthe ruling in Becerra-Jimenez, Congress has provided

that this “court may not order the taking of additional evidence under section

2347(c) of [Title 28].” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). Accordingly, we have no authority

to remand this case for the taking of new evidence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2347(c)(2). See § 1252(a)(1). Furthermore, as Ezeokoli’s petition for review is

now moot and the arguments Ezeokoli is raising in his I-360 petition are not at

issue in the petition for review, holding the petition for review in abeyance would

not promote judicial efficiency. Accordingly, Ezeokoli’s motion is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED AS MOOT; MOTION DENIED.

2

Case: 11-60847 Document: 00512048312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2012