Bobby Siagian v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60036 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 12/06/2010 [10-60036]

Bobby Siagian v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 10-60036

Document: 00511264237

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/15/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-60036 S u m m a r y Calendar October 15, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

B O B B Y TYRONE SIAGIAN, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A095-629-774

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* B o b b y Tyrone Siagian, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions this c o u r t for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying h is motion for reconsideration. We review the denial of a motion to reconsider u n d e r a "highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F .3 d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). S ia g ia n argues that as an Indonesian Christian, he is a member of a " d is fa v o r e d group" as defined in Sael v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 922, 924-25 (9th Cir.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-60036

Document: 00511264237 Page: 2 No. 10-60036

Date Filed: 10/15/2010

2 0 0 4 ), and that the Ninth Circuit extended the disfavored group analysis to w it h h o ld in g of removal cases in Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1052, 10686 9 (9th Cir. 2009), and more recently in Tampubolon v. Holder, 598 F.3d 521, 5 2 4 -2 7 (9th Cir.), amended and superseded on denial of rehearing, 610 F.3d 1056 (9 t h Cir. 2010). Siagian argues that the BIA erred in denying his motion for r e c o n s id e r a tio n because the BIA failed to apply the disfavored group analysis. T h e Government argues that Siagian failed to exhaust his claim that he is a m e m b e r of a disfavored group. " A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has e x h a u s t e d all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Failure to exhaust an issue before the BIA creates a ju r is d ic t io n a l bar. Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317-19 (5th Cir. 2009).

A lt h o u g h Siagian now avers that he is a member of a disfavored group and that t h e BIA erred in denying his motion for reconsideration without conducting a d is fa v o r e d group analysis, he did not raise these arguments in his motion for recon sid era tion . Because Siagian has failed to exhaust administrative remedies, t h is court lacks jurisdiction. See Omari, 562 F.3d at 317-19. Siagian's petition for review is DISMISSED.

2