Usama Sadik Abdel-Whab v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES On

Certain documents show petitioner’s name as “Abdel-Wahab,” but we will adopt the1
spelling found in the caption of this case.
CPS-40 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-4139
________________
USAMA SADIK ABDEL-WHAB,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A79 120 260
on August 9, 2005
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 10, 2005
Before: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed : December 6, 2005)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Usama Sadik Abdel-Whab petitions for review of a decision of the Board of1

-- 1 of 2 --

This court’s review does not extend to any of the BIA’s orders entered before August2
9, 2005, because the petition for review was only timely as to that order. See Stone v.
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Nocon v. INS, 789 F.2d 1028, 1033-34 (3d Cir. 1986).
The motion to reopen Abdel-Whab submitted to the Board does argue that he was3
“tortured before in Egypt in 1998 & 1999.” Any claim based on torture in 1998 and 1999
clearly could have been raised in his original removal proceedings. His motion also
argued that the Egyptian government is now questioning relatives in Egypt about his
detention in the United States, which causes him to fear for his life. Assuming that the
Egyptian government is asking questions about him, that information is not sufficient to
show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Egypt. See 8
C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463, 471 (3d Cir. 2003).
2
Immigration Appeals, denying his fourth motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We
will deny the petition.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion with
“broad deference” to its decision. Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir.
2003). Abdel-Whab’s petition argues that the Board should have reopened his2
proceedings to allow him to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture, and
due to new evidence regarding his wife’s health. However, his petition then goes on to
argue only that the conviction on which his removal order was based is invalid.3
Under the regulations, the Board “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if
the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). As
Abdel-Whab’s motion was numerically barred by the regulations, the Board did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion. We will therefore deny the petition.

-- 2 of 2 --