Hurley v. United States Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
FILED
_____________________ December 6, 2007
No. 07-30314
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
MICHAEL ANTHONY HURLEY; JO
ANNA P. HURLEY
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION
AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, OF THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
U.S. 6:07-CV-608
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs-Appellants (possibly, Petitioners-
Appellants) Michael Anthony Hurley and Jo Anna P. Hurley, husband and
wife, appeal the district court’s denial of their Complaint/Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
and Other Relief filed April 3, 2007. In its Order, the district court offered
that any relief to which the Hurleys might be entitled must be sought from
this court pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 as amended by the REAL ID Act of
2005. The Hurleys timely filed a purported notice of appeal entitled
Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and
Permanent Injunction and Petition for Review and Other Relief. Liberally
construing the filings of these pro se parties as a timely notice of appeal, we
decline to construe it as a petition for review, because if were we thus to
construe it, we would have to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. This is
because, as a petition for review, it is untimely filed on its face.
We are not unmindful of the plight of the Hurleys resulting from a
relatively minor controlled substance violation by Michael decades ago in a
foreign country, which violation and the punishment for it were subsequently
omitted or misreported by Michael in his responses to questions posed by
immigration officials in this country, all of which has led to his removal to his
native England. Neither are we unsympathetic with the Hurleys or
unmindful of the legitimate concern of congressional officials for the Hurleys’
circumstances. We are, however, bound to follow the clear and unambiguous
dictates of the law applicable to this situation, which begins now as always
with the threshold question of our jurisdiction. Finding we have none, we
have no choice but to dismiss this appeal cum petition for review for lack of
2
jurisdiction as a result of the untimely filing of the Hurleys’ pleadings even
when construed as a notice of appeal.
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
3