Kamodjou v. Holder

Filing 920100902

Opinion

Case: 08-60630

Document: 00511223056

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 08-60630 S u m m a r y Calendar September 2, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

M A C H O U D I BOLADJI KAMODJOU, P e titio n e r, versu s E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, R esp on d en t.

P e t it io n for Review of an Order of t h e Board of Immigration Appeals N o . A23 557 713

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

T h e 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 No. 08-60630

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

A c t , 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The Board of Immigration Appeals (" B I A " ) 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 b e c a u s e this court lacks jurisdiction to review Kamodjou's challenge to the order o f dismissal. Kamodjou asserts that we have jurisdiction over all of his argum e n ts because they are based in law and because refusal to consider them will r e s u lt in a miscarriage of justice. This court reviews its jurisdiction de novo. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 7 8 8 , 791 (5th Cir. 2000). Kamodjou's prior conviction of a crime involving moral t u r p it u d e bars us from exercising jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). In a d d it io n , we are barred from exercising jurisdiction because Kamodjou challenge s the BIA's discretionary denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's order, the petition fo r review is DISMISSED.

2