USCA11 Case: 20-14861 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-14861 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DIMITAR PETLECHKOV, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216-634-377 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14861 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 20-14861 Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Dimitar Petlechkov, proceeding pro se, seeks review of an order issued by the Department of Homeland Security for his ex- pedited removal from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1228; 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petle- chkov contends that the Department violated his Fifth Amend- ment due process rights by failing to provide notice of the charge of removability and an opportunity to respond. Specifically, he al- leges that the “Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Re- moval Order” contained in the administrative record was never served on him, contrary to the signed (but unsworn) certificate of service on the document. He argues that even if the Notice had been served on him, he would not have been able to respond be- cause it did not provide a return address. And he argues that if he had been given the opportunity to respond, he would have shown (among other things) that the restitution order relied on by the De- partment was “insufficient as a matter of law” to establish that his mail-fraud conviction involved the amount of loss necessary to qualify as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Obasohan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 479 F.3d 785, 791 (11th Cir. 2007), abrogated on other grounds by Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009). He asks this Court to (1) vacate the order of removal and (2) direct the Department to compensate him USCA11 Case: 20-14861 Document: 83-1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023 Page: 3 of 4 20-14861 Opinion of the Court 3 in various ways for the time he spent in Department custody before his removal. We lack jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” an aggravated felony, except to the extent that the petitioner raises constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)– (D). Our jurisdiction is further limited to those claims for which the petitioner “has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.” Id. § 1252(d)(1); see Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). Our jurisdiction to review the claims raised in Petlechkov’s petition turns in part on whether he was, in fact, served with the Notice of Intent and given a reasonable opportunity to respond to it. If so, we lack jurisdiction to review Petlechkov’s claims because he failed to raise any of them before the agency during his expe- dited removal proceedings. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals