Chahine v. INS ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31407
(Summary Calendar)
FADI CHAHINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE;
JANET RENO; DORIS MEISSNER; LYNNE
UNDERDOWN; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(99-CV-1660)
--------------------
January 8, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner-Appellant Fadi Chahine, a permanent resident alien,
appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus
petition for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(C). Chahine sought habeas relief from a removal order
issued pursuant to a proceeding instituted by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (“INS”). The INS instituted removal
proceedings because Chahine had been convicted of the “aggravated
felony” of distribution of heroin in 1992. Chahine argued in his
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
administrative proceedings and in his § 2241 petition that he was
entitled to a “waiver of deportability” under the former 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(c). Chahine argues for the first time in the instant
petition and in this appeal that the INS, during administrative
proceedings, erroneously applied to him the “permanent” rules of
1996 immigration-law amendments contained in the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”).
According to Chahine, the allegedly improper application of the
IIRIRA’s “permanent” rules resulted in a finding by the district
court that it lacked jurisdiction over his 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition. He maintains that under the IIRIRA’s “transitional”
rules, which should have been applied to him, jurisdiction does
exist.
Chahine failed to raise arguments about the applicability of
the “transitional” rules in administrative proceedings before the
Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. “As a
matter of jurisdiction, courts may not review the administrative
decisions of the INS unless the appellant has first exhausted ‘all
administrative remedies.’” Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 518 (5th
Cir. 2000); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d). Accordingly, the federal
courts are without jurisdiction over Chahine’s contentions that the
“transitional” rules should apply to him, and the district court’s
judgment is AFFIRMED as to these claims. See Cardoso, 216 F.3d at
518.
Chahine’s argument that § 212(c)’s waiver of deportability
provisions should have applied retroactively is meritless.
2
See Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquerell, 190 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.
1999). His claim that the IIRIRA amendments violate his equal-
protection rights likewise lacks merit because he has failed to
show that the statutory classifications in those amendments are not
rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. See Clark
v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 461 (1988). Chahine’s due-process claim
fails as well because the relief prescribed by the former 8 U.S.C.
§ 1182(c) was couched in “conditional and permissive terms.”
See Alfarache v. Cravener, 203 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 46 (2000). As to these remaining claims,
the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Chahine’s December 13, 2000, Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance
is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3