Haile v. INS ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MULUGETA HAILE,
Petitioner,
v.
No. 98-2520
U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION
SERVICE,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
(A74-663-875)
Submitted: May 18, 1999
Decided: June 3, 1999
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Richard S. Fishbein, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID GARFIELD, Wash-
ington, D.C., for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney
General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alison
Marie Igoe, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Mulugeta Haile is a native of Ethiopia and a citizen of Eritrea. He
petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum and withholding
of deportation. Our review of the record discloses that the Board did
not abuse its discretion and its decision is without reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. See Haile v. INS, No. A74-663-875 (B.I.A.
Sept. 16, 1998).
We note that, although Haile argued that the agency's failure to
forward his application to the State Department was error, Haile
failed to present that argument to the Board. Failure to exhaust avail-
able administrative remedies precludes this court from considering the
issue on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1994 & Supp. II 1996);*
Tarvand v. INS, 937 F.2d 973, 977 (4th Cir. 1991); Farrokhi v. INS,
900 F.2d 697, 700-01 (4th Cir. 1990).
Haile requested that this court reinstate voluntary departure. We
have limited jurisdiction to consider final agency orders. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105(a). From the record it appears that Haile's request for the
Assistant District Director to reconsider the agency's initial denial of
Haile's request for an extension of the voluntary departure period is
still pending. Because there is no final order concerning Haile's vol-
untary departure, we are without jurisdiction to review the matter.
Further, even if the agency had made a final decision on this matter
_________________________________________________________________
*We note that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal
Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.
104-128, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIRIRA), effective April 1, 1997. Because this
case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA was passed, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1105a(a)(4) is still applicable under the terms of the transitional rules
contained in § 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
2
we would be precluded by IIRIRA's transitional rules from reviewing
the decision, which Congress has firmly placed in the agency's dis-
cretion. See IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(E); 8 U.S.C. § 1254(e) (1994) (cur-
rent version at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229 (West 1999).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3