Jacobo Deleon-Gallegos v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Case: 12-60297 Document: 00512200921 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 8, 2013
No. 12-60297
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JACOBO DELEON-GALLEGOS,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A097 192 011
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jacobo Deleon-Gallegos (Deleon), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions
this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s final order of removal
denying his request for a continuance. Deleon argues that the denial of his
request for a continuance for the purpose of raising a collateral attack on his
2011 conviction pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), violated
his due process rights. He maintains that the BIA’s ruling was clearly erroneous
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 12-60297 Document: 00512200921 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2013
No. 12-60297
because the failure to grant continuances to aliens seeking to raise such
collateral attacks on their convictions renders the ruling in Padilla meaningless
because, in the absence of continuances, no aliens would have time to raise
Padilla-based challenges to their convictions before they are removed from the
United States.
The immigration judge ruled that Deleon was removable from the United
States because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony offense. See 8
U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Deleon did not challenge that determination before
the BIA, and he does not challenge it in this court. Accordingly, we have
jurisdiction to review only claims raising constitutional or purely legal questions.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D). Although Deleon argues that the denial of a
continuance violated his due process rights, the denial of a continuance in a case
involving the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(C) “does not present
a constitutional claim or issue of law that this court has jurisdiction to consider.”
Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2010). Therefore, we do not have
jurisdiction to consider Deleon’s petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
2