Kamodjou v. Holder, (5th Cir. 2010)
Linked as:
Text
Case: 08-60630 Document: 00511223056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 2, 2010
No. 08-60630
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MACHOUDI BOLADJI KAMODJOU,
Petitioner,
versus
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A23 557 713
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Machoudi Kamodjou’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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 Case: 08-60630 Document: 00511223056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Act, 8U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Kamodjou’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. Kamodjou petitions for review of the BIA’s ruling.
The government argues that the petition for review should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review Kamodjou’s challenge to the order of dismissal. Kamodjou asserts that we have jurisdiction over all of his arguments because they are based in law and because refusal to consider them will result in a miscarriage of justice.
This court reviews its jurisdiction de novo. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 2000). Kamodjou’s prior conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude bars us from exercising jurisdiction. See 8U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). In addition, we are barred from exercising jurisdiction because Kamodjou challenges the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief. See 8U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
Sponsored links
