Gi Chul Byeon v. Holder , 340 F. App'x 208 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 21, 2009
    No. 08-60864
    Summary Calendar                Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    GI CHUL BYEON
    Petitioner
    v.
    ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A96 042 703
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Gi Chul Byeon petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order of removal and
    denial of his application for adjustment of status based upon the determination
    that Byeon had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. Byeon
    argues that the BIA erred in determining that his South Carolina conviction for
    drawing and uttering a fraudulent check was a crime involving moral turpitude.
    *
    Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 08-60864
    For the first time, he contends that the offense did not involve moral turpitude
    because he did not have the requisite intent to defraud. Byeon additionally
    renews his assertion that he was not convicted in the South Carolina case
    because no punishment was assessed. The Government counters that this court
    lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition for review.
    This court reviews questions of jurisdiction de novo. Nehme v. INS, 
    252 F.3d 415
    , 420 (5th Cir. 2001). Because the claim that Byeon lacked the requisite
    intent to defraud is raised for the first time in his petition for review, this court
    lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 
    260 F.3d 448
    , 452-53 (5th
    Cir. 2001); 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1).
    This court similarly lacks jurisdiction to review the remaining claims
    raised by Byeon unless they raise legal or constitutional questions. 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1252
    (a)(2)(C) and (D). Byeon argues that this court has jurisdiction because
    he raises a question of law only, to wit: whether a conviction in South Carolina
    for drawing and uttering a fraudulent check is categorically defined as a crime
    involving moral turpitude.      However, he does not actually brief any such
    argument, urging instead that the BIA erred in finding that he was assessed any
    punishment as a result of the South Carolina offense. He specifically disputes
    the BIA’s finding that he was ordered to pay court costs and surcharges.
    Because Byeon’s claim is, in reality, an attempt to have this court revisit the
    factual findings of the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See
    §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D); see also Vasquez-Martinez v. Holder, 
    564 F.3d 712
     (5th
    Cir. 2009); cf. Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 
    450 F.3d 596
    , 599-600 (5th Cir.
    2006). Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-60864

Citation Numbers: 340 F. App'x 208

Judges: Jolly, Benavides, Haynes

Filed Date: 7/21/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024