Anguiano-Arteaga v. Gonzales , 193 F. App'x 350 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 9, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60689
Summary Calendar
MANUEL ANGUIANO-ARTEAGA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A41 631 765)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Manuel Anguiano-Arteaga (Anguiano) appeals (1) the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) reversal of the immigration
judge’s grant of a waiver of inadmissibility and (2) the BIA’s
final order of removal based on Anguiano’s commission of an
aggravated felony. Anguiano argues that his crime of indecency
with a child by exposure was not an aggravated felony. The
respondent argues that we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
We have held that, under § 1252(a)(2)(C), jurisdiction will be
precluded when the alien is removable for committing an aggravated
felony. See Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001).
Anguiano’s conviction under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(2) is an
aggravated felony. See United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d
601, 607 (5th Cir. 2000). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to
consider his petition. See § 1252(a)(2)(C); Nehme, 252 F.3d at
420. In addition, we lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s
“discretionary exercise of its power to review and reverse the IJ’s
grant of, rather than eligibility for, section 212(c) relief.” See
Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 600 (5th Cir.
2006)percent. We therefore dismiss this portion of Anguiano’s
petition for review.
Anguiano also argues that the BIA should have remanded the
matter to the immigration judge rather than ordering him removed.
The BIA did not exceed the scope of its authority in so doing.
See Delgado-Reynua, 450 F.3d at 600-601. This portion of
Anguiano’s petition for review is therefore denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION; DENIED IN PART.
2