Shehadeh v. Gonzales , 206 F. App'x 370 ( 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 17, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60253
Summary Calendar
MOHAMMAD SHEHADEH
Petitioner
v.
ALBERTO R GONZALES, US ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A79 005 877
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammad Shehadeh, a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order of
removal. Because the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ)
decision without offering additional reasons, we may review the
IJ’s decision. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th
Cir. 2006). We review factual findings for substantial evidence
and questions of law de novo. Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d
194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60253
-2-
Shehadeh argues for the first time that his equal protection
and due process rights were violated by the selective enforcement
of alien registration requirements. He also asserts that
immigration officials failed to comply with an internal
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) memorandum that
suggested that removal proceedings should not be initiated
against aliens who could be beneficiaries of an adjustment of
status under the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act (LIFE
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i). Even if Shehadeh’s claims are not
subject to the exhaustion requirement, see Roy v. Ashcroft, 389
F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004), we have rejected the argument that
the registration requirements for certain aliens violate equal
protection or due process. Ahmed, 447 F.3d at 439-40.
Additionally, an internal INS memorandum does not create a
judicially-enforceable protected liberty interest. See
Loa-Herrera v. Trominski, 231 F.3d 984, 989 (5th Cir. 2000).
Shehadeh also contends that the IJ abused his discretion by
refusing to grant a continuance of the removal proceedings to
allow Shehadeh’s pending application for labor certification to
be determined. Shehadeh argues that he may be entitled to adjust
his status under the LIFE Act if his labor certification is
approved. Shehadeh asserts, for the first time, that the failure
to grant a continuance violated his right to equal protection.
The grant of an application for labor certification is but one
step in the “long and discretionary process” of obtaining an
No. 06-60253
-3-
adjustment of status pursuant to § 1255(i). Ahmed, 447 F.3d at
437-39. Accordingly, the IJ’s denial of a continuance pending
determination of Shehadeh’s application for labor certification
was not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 439. Shehadeh has
not provided any support for his assertion that the failure to
grant a continuance violated his equal protection rights.
The petition for review is DENIED.