Malik v. Gonzales , 222 F. App'x 421 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60425
Summary Calendar
LALANI MADATALI MALIK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 929 053
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lalani Madatali Malik, a native and citizen of India,
petitions for review of the April 13, 2006, order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for reconsideration of
the denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceeding. The BIA
denied the motion because Malik’s 60-day period for voluntary
departure expired prior to the time that Malik filed his motion for
reconsideration. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d).
Malik raises several issues that are not pertinent to the
April 13, 2006 decision, including claims regarding his application
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 06-60425
-2-
for withholding of removal and his contention that he is entitled
to relief as a derivative beneficiary of his wife’s labor-
certification application. Because we have jurisdiction to review
only those administrative decisions from which the alien has filed
a petition for review, any claim not relevant to the April 13, 2006
BIA decision is not properly before us. See Zhang v. INS, 348 F.3d
289, 292 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06
(1995)).
Malik concedes that, in Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387,
389-91 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W. 3207(Sept. 28, 2006) (No. 06-477), this court held that the BIA is not
required to automatically toll the voluntary-departure period for
an alien whose motion to reopen is pending before the BIA.
Contrary to Malik’s suggestion, a panel of this court may not
overrule precedent set by another panel, absent an intervening en
banc decision of this court or a Supreme Court decision.
See Foster v. Quarterman, 466 F.3d 359, 367-68 (5th Cir. 2006),
petition for cert. filed, (Jan. 24, 2007) (No. 06-9253). Malik has
not established that the BIA abused its discretion by concluding
that the expiration of his voluntary-departure period precluded the
granting of his motion for reconsideration. See Singh v. Gonzales,
436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006).
Malik’s petition for review is DENIED.