Nawaz v. Gonzales , 207 F. App'x 413 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 28, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60725
Summary Calendar
KHAWAJA MOHAMMAD NAWAZ; NIGHAT NAWAZ; ASIF NAWAZ;
NAVEEN NAWAZ,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 498 247
BIA No. A79 498 248
BIA No. A79 498 250
BIA No. A79 498 251
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Khawaja Nawaz, a native of India and a citizen of Pakistan,
and Nighat, Asif, and Naveen Nawaz, natives and citizens of
Pakistan, petition for review of an order from the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ)
denial of their motion for reconsideration.
The petitioners argue that the IJ erred in determining that
they were removable for overstaying their visas. They contend
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60725
-2-
that overstay is not a deportable offense under the Immigration
and Nationality Act and that their asylum application, which they
had filed before the expiration of their visas, extended their
authorized period of stay. They further contend that the IJ’s
failure to address their concerns about this issue at their
evidentiary hearing and the IJ’s determination that they were
removable violated their due process rights.
This court has repeatedly held aliens to be deportable for
overstaying their visas. See, e.g., Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d
590, 592 (5th Cir. 2006); Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 890-91 (5th
Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the petitioners have not cited any
statutes or case law in support of their argument that their
filing of an asylum application alone extended their authorized
period of stay. The record does not support the petitioners’ due
process argument, and the IJ did not violate the petitioners’ due
process rights in correctly concluding that the petitioners were
removable.
Accordingly, the petitioners’ petition for review of the
BIA’s order is DENIED. All of the petitioners’ outstanding
motions and petitions are also DENIED.