
    Padmanabhan RAGHUNANDHAN, Petitioner Cross-Respondent, v. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, Respondent, Satyam Computer Services, Limited, Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
    No. 10-60931
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2011.
    Padmanabhan Raghunandhan, Plano, TX, pro se.
    Christopher Chen-Hsin Wang, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Thomas Earl Patton, Esq., Evridiki Georgiou, Butzel Long Tighe Patton, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Respondent Cross-Petitioner.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Padmanabhan Raghunandhan petitions for review of an order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”) granting a summary decision for Satyam Computer Services, Limited (“Satyam”), and dismissing Raghunandhan’s claim of citizenship status discrimination and retaliation in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324b(a)(i)(B) and 1324(a)(5). Satyam cross-petitions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(j), asking that we enforce OCA-HO’s final order dismissing Raghunandhan’s claim.

OCAHO issued a twenty-three page opinion with its order, addressing every aspect of the case. After reviewing the record, briefs, and applicable law, we deny Raghunandhan’s petition and grant Satyam’s cross-petition on the basis of OCA-HO’s comprehensive opinion. Raghunandhan has not raised a genuine issue of material fact that his employment was terminated on the basis of his status as a U.S. citizen. To the contrary, the record shows that he was terminated because he refused to return to India when Satyam, because of economic concerns, canceled his temporary assignment as an Onsite Program Manager in the United States. Raghunandhan contends that Satyam’s action violated his employment agreement, but any issue of breach of contract is not before us.

Raghunandhan also contests the denial of his motion to compel discovery, but OCAHO appropriately denied that motion for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of 28 C.F.R. § 68.23(b)(4). Consequently, we DENY Raghunandhan’s petition for review of the OCAHO’s order and GRANT Satyam’s cross-petition seeking enforcement of that order. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     