Queeley v. Ashcroft, et al

*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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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
July 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-30215
Summary Calendar
GEORGE LIVINGSTON QUEELEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT; JAMES W. ZIGLAR;
CHRISTINE DAVIS; WALTER D. CADMAN;
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-489
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
George Queeley appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus with prejudice.
Queeley argues that the district court erred in concluding that the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) properly denied his motion to

-- 1 of 2 --

2
reopen his deportation case in light of INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S.
289 (2001). He has not, however, established that the BIA erred in
denying his motion to reopen because Queeley was not entitled to
discretionary relief, even in light of St. Cyr, as his 1998
marihuana conviction constituted an aggravated felony. See 8
U.S.C. § 1143(a)(43)(B); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2); 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
Queeley also contends that the BIA denied him equal protection
by refusing to reopen his case, although it allowed another
individual to move for discretionary relief or cancellation of
removal. Queeley, however, has not established that he and the
other permanent resident to whom he refers were “similarly
situated.” See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center,
473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Consequently, the judgment of the
district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --