Cervantes-Manzo v. Gonzales, Alberto R.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 25, 2006
Decided October 20, 2006
Before
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
ROBERTO CERVANTES-MANZO,
Petitioner, Petition for Review of
an Order of the Board
No. 06-2163 v. of Immigration
Appeals.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent. No. A12-642-275
Order
Roberto Cervantes-Manzo was ordered removed from the United
States to his native Mexico because of his multiple felony
convictions. More than six years ago, we dismissed his petition
for review of that removal order, because his convictions
qualify as "aggravated felonies" and prevent judicial review. 8
U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C).
After we dismissed his petition, Cervantes-Manzo moved to
reopen the administrative proceeding so that he could apply for
discretionary relief. That request was granted, and a hearing
was scheduled before an immigration judge. At the request of
Cervantes-Manzo, the hearing was delayed repeatedly and finally
set for October 11, 2005. When that time came, everyone except
Cervantes-Manzo was present. The immigration judge waited 75
No. 06-2163 Page 2
minutes, and when Cervantes-Manzo still had not appeared
reinstated the removal order. Three days later Cervantes-Manzo
filed another motion to reopen, which was denied. The Board of
Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Cervantes-Manzo has filed
another petition for judicial review.
As his brief in this court relates matters, he has been
ordered removed from the United States for no better reason than
giving insufficient attention to the calendar. That's not
remotely correct. He has been ordered removed for multiple,
serious felony convictions. He asked for extraordinary relief
from the predicament in which his criminal conduct had placed
him, and when the agency gave him that opportunity--and
postponed the hearing date at his request, allowing him to
remain in the United States for several additional years--he
failed to appear. At some point patience must run out.
The argument that this court should direct the agency to
give him still more opportunities to present his request for
discretionary relief runs into the same problem that led us to
dismiss the petition in 2000: an alien convicted of aggravated
felonies is not entitled to judicial review. Although the Real
ID Act of 2005 permits review of strictly legal issues, see 8
U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D), a contention that the agency has erred in
balancing multiple factors under an open-ended standard is not a
legal argument. See Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547 (7th Cir.
2006); Bokai v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2006).
Application of a multi-factor standard is the very sort of
discretionary call that the statute leaves to the agency.
The petition for review is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.