### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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 a n d native of Nigeria, petitions this court for revie w o f a n o rder 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 a r g u e s 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 c a s e b e r e m a nded to allow him to be heard after the U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 8, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60847 Document: 00512048312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2012No. 11-60847

U nit e d S t at e s C iti z e n a n d I m m i gr ati o n S e rvi c e s (U S C I S ) r u l e s o n t h e I

- 1 3 0 p e t i t i o n . During the pendency of t h e p e tition for review, the USCIS denied the I-130 petition. Ezeokoli has ackn o w l e d g e d that he and his wife are now separated, making relief th o u g h a n I-130 petition unavailable to Ezeokoli. The relief requested by Ezeokoli that we have th e p o w e r 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). Acc o r d i n g ly, there is no meaningful relief that we can grant Ezeokoli on his petition for review, and the petition for review is di s m i s s e d 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. 200 0). While the petition for review was pending, Ezeokoli filed an I-360 petition i n which he alleged that he was an abused spouse and sought relief u n d e r t h e 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 p r o p er 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 t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e r u l i n g in Becerra-Jimenez , Congress has provided that t h is “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 r e mand 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