Park v. Gonzales , 218 F. App'x 360 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    February 15, 2007
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-60222
    Summary Calendar
    SANG DAE PARK,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A37 704 357
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Sang Dae Park, a citizen of Korea, petitions this court to review the order by the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
    denying his request for a discretionary waiver of removal under former Immigration and Nationality
    Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Park contends that (1) the IJ plainly erred in finding that
    he was ineligible for § 212(c) relief because the IJ conflated statutory eligibility with discretion, (2)
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    he was denied due process because the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard, and (3) the IJ abused
    his discretion in failing to consider favorable evidence and in denying relief.
    Because Park’s third argument attacks the IJ’s weighing of the favorable and adverse factors
    for § 212(c) relief and does not present a constitutional or legal question, this court lacks jurisdiction
    as to that claim. See Delgado-Reynua, 
    450 F.3d 596
    , 600 (5th Cir. 2006). Additionally, this court
    is without jurisdiction to review Park’s remaining claims because he failed to present them in his
    appeal to the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wang v. Ashcroft,
    
    260 F.3d 448
    , 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
    Accordingly, Park’s petition for review is DISMISSED.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-60222

Citation Numbers: 218 F. App'x 360

Judges: Demoss, Stewart, Prado

Filed Date: 2/15/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024