
    Kingsley UGWU, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-40511-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 12, 2007.
    
      Frank B. Lindner, Yardley, PA, for Petitioner.
    Manish Shah, Assistant United States Attorney, (Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Edmond E. Chang, Assistant United States Attorney, Craig A. Oswald, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, Chicago, IL., for Respondent.
    Present: RALPH K. WINTER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges, and EDWARD R. KORMAN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as respondent in this case.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Kingsley Ugwu appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dated April 8, 2003, denying Ugwu’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of this case.

On appeal, Ugwu argues that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to reopen his removal proceedings in light of (1) his certification as a member of the plaintiff class in Immigration Assistance Project v. INS, No. C88-379R (W.D.Wash.), and (2) his legalization application pending before the Department of Homeland Security.

Based on our assessment of the parties’ submissions, the applicable case law, and the record on appeal, we conclude that petitioner’s claims are without merit. The BIA properly denied Ugwu’s motion to reopen because both Ugwu’s class action lawsuit and his legalization application are collateral proceedings separate and distinct from Ugwu’s asylum claim. Ugwu’s motion to reopen failed to raise any issues related to his asylum claim. Moreover, he has provided no explanation of how the BIA’s denial of his motion affects his ability to pursue his other claims in the proper administrative and judicial channels.

We have carefully considered all of petitioner’s arguments on appeal and find each of them to be without merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.  