Khoja v. Gonzales, No. 05-60320 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60320 ____________________ NURUDDIN KARIM ALI KHOJA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Nuruddin Karim Ali Khoja petitions this Court to review his order of removal. Because Khoja s arguments are refuted by precedent directly on point, we deny the petition. Khoja first claims that his removal order is invalid because the federal government s National Security Entry/Exit Registration System ( NSEERS ), which brought him to the attention of the immigration authorities, violates equal protection. We rejected the same argument Khoja makes here in two recent decisions, which * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, this Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. held that any impact NSEERS has on removal proceedings does not amount to a violation of equal protection. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006) (challenge to initiation of proceedings); Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 681 82 (5th Cir. 2006) (suppression claim). Under Ahmed and Ali, Khoja s equal protection claim fails. Khoja s second claim is that evidence obtained from his NSEERS interview must be suppressed because it was gathered in violation of 8 C.F.R. ยง 287.3. We rejected this argument in Ali, holding (1) that the exclusionary rule does not ordinarily apply to civil removal proceedings and (2) that any error was harmless where the petitioner admitted to any specific piece of evidence that should have been suppressed. 440 F.3d at 682. removability and failed to point As with the petitioner in Ali, Khoja fails to cite any authority showing that the exclusionary rule should apply. addition, any error is harmless because Khoja admitted In his removability and does not point to any particular piece of evidence that should have been excluded. Ali refutes Khoja s second claim. Third, Khoja claims, citing the Seventh Circuit s decision in Subhan v. Immigration Ashcroft, Court 383 abused F.3d 591 its (7th Cir. discretion continuance to pursue labor certification. by 2004), that denying him the a We rejected Subhan s analysis in Ahmed, 447 F.3d at 438 39, holding instead that a pending labor certification does not amount to good cause for a 2 continuance because the chances that a pending labor certification will actually become grounds for relief are too speculative: [T]he receipt of [a] pending labor certification [i]s only the first step in [a] long and discretionary process. Id. at 439. In eligible for accord with Ahmed, we reject Khoja s third claim. Khoja s final argument is that he remains additional relief before the Immigration Court because (1) his instant petition for review tolls the voluntary departure clock and (2) the non-adjudication of his labor certification represents exceptional circumstances for his failure to depart. are not ripe for our review. These claims See Ali, 440 F.3d at 682. In conclusion, the petition for review is DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
