Aristeo Palma Melchor v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 17-60232 Document: 00514350017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60232 FILED Summary Calendar February 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ARISTEO PALMA MELCHOR, also known as Aristeo Palma, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A044 782 721 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Aristeo Palma Melchor (Palma), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), wherein the BIA dismissed Palma’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for a waiver of removability. The Respondent moves for summary denial. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-60232 Document: 00514350017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018 No. 17-60232 Palma argues in his petition for review that the BIA erroneously held that he did not raise a meaningful challenge to the immigration judge’s decision, incorrectly construed the arguments raised in his appellate brief, incorrectly determined that the immigration judge had found him statutorily eligible for a waiver, and committed legal error. As a result, Palma argues that the BIA failed to examine whether the immigration judge had erred in finding that he engaged in a polygamous relationship and in weighing the discretionary factors he presented in favor of waiver of removability. In light of the BIA’s failure to conduct a full appellate review, Palma argues that his due process rights were violated. We lack jurisdiction to consider Palma’s claims of error in the BIA’s decisionmaking because he did not raise them first in a motion for reconsideration before the BIA. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2009). Although Palma alleges a due process violation, he cannot escape the exhaustion requirement when there was an adequate mechanism for the BIA to address and remedy the purported errors. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, Palma’s petition for review is DISMISSED. The Respondent’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 2 17-60232 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Aristeo Palma Melchor v. Jefferson Sessions, III 16 February 2018 Immigration Unpublished ddc551b0294c8f5c1f7b3a3831a7848e546f8028

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals