Case Name: Jobi Kurian KADAVIL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-17
Citations: 182 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 05-60713
Parties: Jobi Kurian KADAVIL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
Jobi Kurian KADAVIL, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-60713
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 17, 2006.
Malvern Clopton Burnett, Law Office of Malvern C. Burnett, New Orleans, LA, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jobi Kurian Kadavil, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) order of removal. Kadavil contends that the IJ erred by denying his final motion for a continuance so that he could pursue a T-l visa application because he was a victim of a severe form of human trafficking.
Our review is for abuse of discretion, see Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 466 (5th Cir.2005), and we find no abuse of discretion in Kadavil's case. First, the IJ had previously granted Kadavil one continuance to pursue a nonimmigrant worker application and two continuances to pursue his T-1 application. Second, the evidence indicated that the T-1 application would be denied initially. Third, Kadavil did not present the documentation needed to support his T-1 application, see 8 CFR § 211.1(a), and the evidence in the record did not indicate when, or even whether, the T-1 application would be supplemented. The IJ gave Kadavil ample time to pursue relief, yet Kadavil did not demonstrate that he had submitted a T-1 application that would be seriously considered.
PETITION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.