Kalalib v. Gonzales
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 1, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-60663 Summary Calendar FIRAS KALALIB, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75 894 332 -------------------Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Firas Kalalib, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's denial of his applications for waivers of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. First
Kalalib asserts that the immigration judge (IJ) erred in requiring him to establish that his wife would suffer extreme hardship if he were deported in order to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ did not err in requiring Kalalib to He does not qualify for
meet the requirements of § 1182(h)(1)(B).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 05-60663 -2a waiver under subparagraph (A) under the statute's plain language because the IJ determined that he is inadmissible under both § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(D) and § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). See § 1182(h)(1)(A).
In the alternative, Kalalib asserts that he did establish that his wife would suffer extreme hardship upon his deportation, such that he is entitled to waivers of inadmissibility under § 1182(h) and (i). § We are precluded from considering this issue by 8 U.S.C. which bars judicial review of the IJ's
discretionary determinations under § 1182(h) and (i). Kalalib also asserts two arguments that he failed to raise before the BIA: that the IJ violated his Due Process rights in
finding that he had committed visa fraud and that the IJ ignored BIA precedent in denying his application for adjustment of status. Because Kalalib failed to exhaust these issues, we do not have jurisdiction to consider them. See § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Finally, Kalalib asserts that the IJ erred in considering his prior arrests in exercising his discretion. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review the bases for discretionary determinations under § 1182(h) & (i) and § 1255. See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
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?