Case Name: Alex Asare BEDIAKIEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 213 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 06-1633
Parties: Alex Asare BEDIAKIEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 213
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
Alex Asare BEDIAKIEH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 06-1633.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2007.
Danielle Beach Oswald, Noto & Oswald, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Eric W. Marsteller, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alex Asare Bediakieh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") adopting and affirming the immigration judge's decision that he was without jurisdiction to consider his application for adjustment of status. We decline to consider whether the relevant regulations are valid. The regulations were amended May 12, 2006. See 71 Fed. Reg. 27, 585. Bediakieh filed a motion to reconsider with the Board soon thereafter for the purpose of considering his application for adjustment of status under the new regulations. The Board denied the motion finding the immigration judge was without jurisdiction. Thus, a remand for the purpose of considering the effect of the amended regulations would be futile. See Alam v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir.2006).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.