Case Name: TUAN CHAU PHAM, 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: 2008-10-21
Citations: 297 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 05-61167
Parties: TUAN CHAU PHAM, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 335–335

Head Matter:
TUAN CHAU PHAM, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-61167.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2008.
Brenda C. Diaz, Phung, Miyamoto & Diaz, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Michael B. Mukasey, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Luis Enrique Perez, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tuan Chau Pham is a native and citizen of Vietnam who was ordered deported from this country based on a determination that he had committed aggravated felonies that were crimes of violence. Pham moved to reopen his case and argued that he was eligible for relief under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). The immigration judge denied both Pham's motion to reopen and his subsequent motion for reconsideration, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge. Pham now petitions this court for review. Pham will receive relief only if he shows that the BIA abused its discretion when it affirmed the denial of his motion. See Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir.2006).
Pham argues that the BIA's application of former § 1182(c) is contrary to INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 295, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), and violative of his equal protection rights. These arguments are unavailing. See Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 356, 359 (5th Cir.2007); Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 366-70 (5th Cir.2007). Pham's petition for review is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.