Velasquez v. Gonzales ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            June 29, 2007
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-60859
    Summary Calendar
    BALBINO CERDA VELASQUEZ,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    --------------------
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A75 209 037
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Balbino Cerda Velasquez petitions this court for review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision denying his
    motion to terminate removal proceedings.                       For the first time in
    his petition for review, Velasquez argues that the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) violated his due process rights by
    failing to advise him prior to his applying for advance parole
    that the immigration judge would lack jurisdiction to adjudicate
    during his removal proceedings any application for adjustment 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    No. 06-60859
    -2-
    status he might file because he did not have such an application
    already pending when he was paroled.       Velasquez additionally
    urges, as he did below, that he is eligible for adjustment of
    status based on unwritten, internal DHS policy.
    The BIA’s decision not to terminate its proceedings is
    reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.       See Gottesman v.
    INS, 
    33 F.3d 383
    , 388 (4th Cir. 1994).       Velasquez’s unexhausted
    due process argument was raised for the first time in his
    petition for review and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review
    it.   
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 
    260 F.3d 448
    ,
    452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).   Internal DHS memoranda are not binding
    on the BIA, In re Tijam, 
    22 I&N Dec. 408
    , 416 (BIA 1998), and,
    therefore, Velasquez has not shown an abuse of discretion on the
    part of the BIA.
    PETITION DENIED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-60859

Judges: Jolly, Garza, Clement

Filed Date: 6/29/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024