IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60169 Summary Calendar

JAMAL Y. ELHAJ-CHEHADE, Petitioner,

versus

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER,

Respondents.

- - - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer OCAHO No. 98B00068 - - - - - - - - - - -

Consolidated with No. 99-11112 Summary Calendar

JAMAL Y. ELHAJ-CHEHADE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-1622-P - - - - - - - - - - October 16, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, Jamal Y. Elhaj-Chehade has filed

a petition for review of an order of the Office of the Chief

Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) in No. 99-60169, and he has

appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his

federal civil complaint. Elhaj-Chehade argues that it was error to

hold that his suit against the University of Texas, Southwestern

Medical Center (UTSW), was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a private citizen from

bringing suit against a state or one of its agencies in federal

court without that state’s consent or without congressional

abrogation of immunity. Cronen v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs.,

(5th Cir. 1992). UTSW is an arm of the State. See

(a)(7) and § 74.101. Elhaj-Chehade has

failed to demonstrate that UTSW has unequivocally waived its

sovereign immunity, and Congress did not unequivocally abrogate the

State’s sovereign immunity when it enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. See

Hensel v. OCAHO,

, 508 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,

the petition for review of the OCAHO’s decision in No. 99-60169 is

DENIED. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in No. 99-

11112. All outstanding motions are 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.