Dragomir Taskov v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 17-60771      Document: 00514780309         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/03/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 17-60771
    FILED
    January 3, 2019
    Summary Calendar
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Consolidated with 18-60073
    DRAGOMIR TASKOV,
    Petitioner
    v.
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petitions for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A072 509 789
    Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Dragomir Taskov petitions for review of the decision of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the decision of the Immigration
    Judge (IJ) ordering Taskov’s removal and denying his application under 8
    U.S.C. § 1229b(a) for cancellation of removal. The BIA applied a modified
    categorical approach in determining that Taskov’s 2012 conviction of receipt of
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-60771     Document: 00514780309     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/03/2019
    No. 17-60771
    c/w No. 18-60073
    stolen property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315, is an aggravated felony under
    8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G). Taskov has presented no argument with respect to
    that determination. He has therefore waived the central issue whether the
    BIA erred in dismissing his appeal on that basis. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 830
    , 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is denied in
    part.
    The notice to appear was refiled improperly, Taskov asserts, and the
    original charge of overstaying his visa was invalid. Because the aggravated
    felony conviction independently establishes Taskov’s removability and because
    the BIA never addressed the overstay charge, this issue is not properly before
    this court. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
    429 U.S. 24
    , 25 (1976); Iruegas-Valdez v.
    Yates, 
    846 F.3d 806
    , 811 (5th Cir. 2017).
    According to Taskov, he was not properly notified of the agency’s motion
    for a change of venue; the order granting the agency’s motion was not based on
    “good cause”; the IJ erred in denying his motion for a change of venue; and the
    BIA arbitrarily denied his interlocutory appeal from that order. Except insofar
    as they raise questions of law and constitutional claims, this court lacks
    jurisdiction to consider these questions. See Ogunfuye v. Holder, 
    610 F.3d 303
    ,
    307 (5th Cir. 2010). Taskov has not shown that his right to due process was
    violated because service of process was made on his counsel of record. The
    contention that counsel was not authorized to represent Taskov is not
    supported by the record, and Taskov has not shown that he was prejudiced in
    any way by a lack of notice. See 
    Ogunfuye, 310 F.3d at 306-07
    . In a related
    contention, Taskov asserts in conclusory fashion that the agency violated his
    rights of access to the immigration court and to self-representation and that
    the immigration court refused to file or rule on his pro se motions. These
    contentions are refuted by the record.
    2
    Case: 17-60771    Document: 00514780309    Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/03/2019
    No. 17-60771
    c/w No. 18-60073
    Finally, Taskov complains that he was detained in violation of his rights
    under the Fourth Amendment because he was taken into custody before he
    was released from confinement for his criminal convictions and was detained
    without bond and because the immigration court unreasonably delayed his
    removal proceedings. These contentions are not related to the removal order
    and are moot because Taskov has been removed to Canada. See Dormeus v.
    Keisler, 252 F. App’x 611, 612 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the petition for
    review is dismissed in part.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN
    PART.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-60073

Filed Date: 1/3/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/3/2019