Malik v. Gonzales

Filing 920070103


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1066 SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 06-1562 SHAHID AFZAAL MALIK, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A93-279-949) Submitted: November 30, 2006 Decided: January 3, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petitions dismissed in part; denied in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shanta Ramson, RAMSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Burtonsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Francesca U. Tamami, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Afzaal Malik, a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks to challenge two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). In No. 06-1066, Malik challenges the Board's order finding that the immigration judge did not err in denying his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility under 212(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(I) (2000), to and for any adjustment claim that of the status. Board We abused lack its jurisdiction review discretion in affirming the denial of a 212(I) waiver, Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001), and the subsequent denial of adjustment of status. 2005). 8 U.S.C.A. 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) (West Under 8 U.S.C.A. 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), we do have "a circumscribed jurisdiction to resolve constitutional narrowly claims or questions of law raised by aliens seeking discretionary relief." Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417, 419 (4th Cir.), cert. However, we find no merit in denied, 126 S. Ct. 2973 (2006). Malik's alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights. In No. 06-1562, Malik petitions for review of a decision of the Board denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the Board's initial order. To the extent Malik seeks review of the Board's reconsideration of its discretionary denial of relief under 1252(a)(2)(B)(I), we have no jurisdiction to review that denial "dressed up as a motion to reconsider." Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d - 3 - 475, 481 (4th Cir. 2006). As to the Board's application of its general precedent and regulations concerning motions to reopen and reconsider, we hold that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Malik's motion to reopen and reconsider. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a) (2006). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitions for review in part for lack of jurisdiction, and deny them in part. oral argument because the facts and legal We dispense with contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART - 4 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?