* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60747 Summary Calendar

ASIF MEHMOOD Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A97 545 842
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Asif Mehmood, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions this court for
reviewofthe Board ofImmigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal ofthe Immigration Judge’s (IJ) removal order. Mehmood contends that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s June 8, 2006 denial of his request for a continuance United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60747

1The IJ had previously granted nine continuances, the first ofwhich had been granted June 29, 2004. 2 pending the adjudication of his application for labor certification. 1 Both the IJ and the BIA determined that Mehmood’s pending application for labor certification did not constitute good cause to continue the removal proceedings. This determination was not an abuse ofdiscretion. SeeAhmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 438-39 (5th Cir. 2006). In Ahmed v. Gonzales, this Circuit held that an IJ’s refusal to grant a continuance pending the adjudication of an alien’s application for labor certification was not an abuse of discretion. 447 F.3d 433, 439 (5th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to the LIFE Act, a removable alien is permitted to apply for an adjustment of status if, among other things, the alien is the beneficiary of an application for labor certification properly filed on or before April 30, 2001. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). The Attorney General may adjust an alien’s status after he receives a labor certification if: “(A) the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence; and (B) an immigrant visa is immediately available to the alien at the time the application is filed.” I d. § 1255(i)(2). Thus, filing of an application for labor certification does not vest the alien with any right to relieffrom removal, but is merely the first step in the “long and discretionary process” of obtaining an adjustment of status under § 1255(i). Ahmed, 447 F.3d at 438–39. Mehmood attempts to distinguish his case from Ahmed by conclusorily asserting that his labor certification was approved and he filed an I-140 visa application on September 11, 2007. These supposed events, however, allegedly occurred after the BIA issued its August 27, 2007 decision and may not be considered for the first time on appeal, as “our review is limited to the administrative record,” Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994)., and nothing in the administrative record here even hints at any of theseNo. 07-60747

3 supposed events. In any event, this circuit stated in Ahmed that even had the alien’s application for labor certification been approved at the time of the hearing, the alien would have been no less removable. 447 F.3d at 438 & 438 n.3 (stating that only after the approval ofthe alien’s I-140visa application “would he have been eligible for the discretionary removal relief contemplated by 1255(i)”). At the time of Mehmood’s removal hearing, an immigrant visa was not available to him; therefore, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a continuance. Mehmood’s wholly unsupported and conclusory contention that the IJ's denial of his request for a continuance violated equal protection principles because “the BIA and other courts have allowed continuances based on family based petitions” is deemed waived as inadequately briefed. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Mehmood’s petition for review is DENIED.