Chattoor v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60087
Summary Calendar
MADATALI KASSAMALI CHATOOR,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91-907-305
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Madatali Kassamali Chatoor, a native and citizen of India,
entered the United States in 1985 without inspection and became
a lawful permanent resident in 1990. In 1996, Chatoor pleaded
guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320, trafficking in
counterfeit goods or services and aiding and abetting, and was
sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment and three years’
supervised release.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-60087
-2-
In 2000, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordered
Chatoor removed and deported to India. Chatoor departed the
United States as ordered.
In September 2001, Chatoor moved the BIA to reopen his
removal proceedings. Id. at 14. He alleged that under INS
v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), he was entitled to relief, and
he argued that his departure from the United States did not moot
or bar his action. The BIA denied Chatoor’s motion to reopen,
citing 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(d) and explaining that because Chatoor had
been deported, it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion.
Chatoor filed a timely petition for review.
Chatoor contends that the BIA erred in relying on § 3.2(d).
He argues that under St. Cyr, he is eligible for relief from
removal. He contends that the BIA may exercise its discretion to
reopen his case as an exceptional situation based on a change in
the law.
Chatoor’s position is foreclosed by our opinion in Navarro-
Miranda v. Ashcroft, ___ F.3d ___, 2003 WL 565800 (5th Cir.
Feb. 28, 2003) (No. 01-60945). Accordingly, Chatoor’s petition
for review is DENIED.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --