Case Name: Gilberto Araujo YEPEZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-27
Citations: 267 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 07-60175
Parties: Gilberto Araujo YEPEZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Gilberto Araujo YEPEZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60175
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 27, 2008.
Carol H. Sloss, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gilberto Araujo Yepez (Yepez), a citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of an order denying his application for adjustment of status to that of lawful perma nent resident and ordering his removal to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the order of the immigration judge (IJ). The respondent moves for summary disposition based on this court's decision in Mortera-Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246, 255-56 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1031, 126 S.Ct. 733, 163 L.Ed.2d 569 (2005). In the alternative, the respondent moves to reset the briefing schedule.
Because he was inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), the BIA did not act arbitrarily when it determined that Yepez was not eligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). MorteraCruz, 409 F.3d at 255-56. Although Yepez argues that this court should revisit Mort-era-Cruz in light of decisions from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits that interpret the § 1255 waiver more broadly, one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel determination. See Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th Cir. 1999). Because this court is bound by Mortera-Cruz, there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and summary disposition is appropriate. See NLRB v. Evans Plumbing Co., 639 F.2d 291, 292 n. 1 (5th Cir.1981). The petition for review is denied.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION GRANTED; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION TO RESET BRIEFING SCHEDULE DENIED AS MOOT.
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.