Ruano Martinez v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60505 Document: 00516246096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 21, 2022
No. 20-60505
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Eddy Ruano Martinez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A203 778 258
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Eddy Ruano Martinez, a native and citizen of Cuba, has filed a petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order summarily
dismissing his appeal as barred by his waiver of appeal before the Immigration
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60505 Document: 00516246096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
No. 20-60505
Judge. He contends that the BIA erred in dismissing his appeal because his
waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently.
The BIA is authorized to dismiss an appeal summarily where “[t]he
appeal is . . . barred by an affirmative waiver of the right of appeal that is clear
on the record.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G). The record does not compel
a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s finding that Ruano Martinez waived his
right to appeal and did not challenge the waiver in his notice of appeal. See
Kohwarien v. Holder, 635 F.3d 174, 178 (5th Cir. 2011). Further, because
Ruano Martinez did not challenge the validity of his appeal waiver before the
BIA in either his notice of appeal or in a motion for reconsideration, he failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v.
Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction
to consider Ruano Martinez’s argument that the appeal waiver was not made
knowingly and intelligently. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 137.
The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
part for lack of jurisdiction.
2