Noorani v. United States Attorney General ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________      FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    Nos. 05-11883 & 05-13986              ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    OCTOBER 20, 2006
    ________________________
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    CLERK
    BIA Nos. A95 246 684 & A95-247-442
    SHAHZAD NOORANI,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    _________________________
    (October 20, 2006)
    Before ANDERSON, HULL and CUDAHY,* Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shahzad Noorani petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
    *
    Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit,
    sitting by designation
    Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of a continuance.
    He also appeals the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. We review the denial
    of a motion for continuance for abuse of discretion, see Olvera v. INS, 
    504 F.2d 1372
    , 1374 (5th Cir. 1974), and denial of motion to reconsider for abuse of
    discretion, see Ass’ad v. U.S. Attorney General, 
    332 F.3d 1321
    , 1341 (11th Cir.
    2003).
    On appeal, Noorani argues that the IJ abused its discretion when it denied his
    motion for a continuance because by having an approved labor certification, he was
    eligible for adjustment under INA § 245(i), 
    8 U.S.C. §1255
    (i). Noorani also had an
    approved I-140 but withdrew it before the government decided his pending I-485
    petition. His new employer submitted a letter, asking to be substituted for a
    previous employer upon whose employment offer the I-140 had been granted.
    Noorani argues that he inadvertently withdrew his application for the I-485 but
    tried to reinstate it.
    We vacate the BIA’s opinion and remand for reconsideration in light of
    Merchant v. U.S. Attorney General, 
    461 F.3d 1375
     (11th Cir. 2006), Zafar v. U.S.
    Attorney General, 
    461 F.3d 1357
     (11th Cir. 2006), and Ugokwe v. U.S. Attorney
    General, 
    453 F.3d 1325
     (11th Cir. 2006). Also, it is unclear from the record
    whether or not Noorani had validly filed I-140 and I-485 petitions pending. In
    2
    addition to reconsidering this case in light of Merchant, Zafar, and Ugokwe, the
    BIA and/or IJ may determine the status of Noorani’s filings.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-11883, 05-13986

Judges: Anderson, Hull, Cudahy

Filed Date: 10/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024