
    Hatem Sulieman NASER, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60342.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 24, 2005.
    Bruce A. Coane, Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Coane & Associates, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Michael Peter Lindemann, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, Lisa M. Anold, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Aberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Hatem Naser petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA’s) decision finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), (ii) and, therefore, statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status and removable. He has also moved to expedite our ruling on that petition. Naser argues that his checking the “citizen or national” box on two 1-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the purpose of securing private employment was an insufficient basis on which to find him inadmissible. He further argues that the BIA’s decision to utilize its summary affirmance procedures was inappropriate in his case.

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that Naser had not borne his burden of showing that he was “clearly and beyond doubt” not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(2)(A). The issue whether Naser is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) is pretermitted in light of the determination that substantial evidence supported the finding that he was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Finally, we reject Naser’s argument that we must review the BIA’s use of its streamlined review process. See Garciar-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir.2003).

PETITION AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     