Jung v. Gonzales
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
F I L E D
June 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
No. 05-60483 Summary Calendar
EUI SOO JUNG, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
-------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A78 918 208 --------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Eui Soo Jung has filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") summarily dismissing his appeal as barred by his waiver of appeal before the immigration judge ("IJ"). Because it is plain on the record that Jung waived
his right to appeal, the BIA was authorized to dismiss his appeal summarily without further briefing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G), 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
No. 05-60483 -2(e)(3). The BIA's finding that Jung made no argument in his notice of appeal challenging that waiver is conclusive, because no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. See id. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Because Jung did not raise, before the BIA, a challenge to the validity of his appeal waiver, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, this court is precluded from reviewing his argument that the appeal waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently. See § 1252(d)(1). Similarly, we will not address
Jung's argument, not raised before the BIA, that he was denied due process before the IJ because he did not have representation by counsel. The petition for review is DENIED. Jung's motion for stay of
removal pending resolution of the petition for review is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?