Sealed v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 17-60512 Document: 00514243523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-60512 FILED Summary Calendar November 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk SEALED PETITIONER, 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. A089 382 147 Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We lack jurisdiction to consider the two issues Petitioner raises on ap- peal. First, he contends that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to apply the “clearly erroneous” standard of review and instead “rejected the [immigra- tion judge’s] record-based findings in favor of [the Board’s] own assessment of the evidence.” But this issue is outside our jurisdiction because Petitioner * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-60512 Document: 00514243523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/20/2017 No. 17-60512 never presented it to the Board. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319–21 (5th Cir. 2009). Second, Petitioner contends that the Board made erroneous factual findings. But he is removable for having committed crimes covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i), depriving us of jurisdiction to review issues of fact. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C),(D). Although Petitioner is correct that that we may review whether the facts found are legally sufficient to war- rant relief, see, e.g., Alvarado de Rodriguez v. Holder, 585 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2009); Matter of Z-Z-O, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 590–91 (BIA 2015), that is not the nature of his appeal. Rather, he complains that he “presented substantial, credible, and unchallenged evidence” contradicting the Board’s findings. That is squarely an issue of fact. See, e.g., Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, 702 F.3d 781, 785 (5th Cir. 2012); Morka v. Holder, 554 F. App’x 342, 343 (5th Cir. 2014). It is therefore ORDERED that Respondent’s opposed motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. 2 17-60512 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Sealed v. Jefferson Sessions, III 20 November 2017 Immigration Unpublished e535ff5c774cb9c2f3ae382d8aaf196bac62e6e8

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