Diego Caniz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60319 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: CDK , Judge: FPB , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 02/07/2011 [10-60319]

Diego Caniz v. Eric Holder, Jr. Case: 10-60319

Document: 00511324716 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-60319 S u m m a r y Calendar December 17, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D I E G O FRANCISCO CANIZ, 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. A094 022 615

B e fo r e KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D ie g o Francisco Caniz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for r e v ie w of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal fr o m the Immigration Judge's (IJ) removal order. Caniz makes no argument r e g a r d in g the denial of his claims for cancellation of removal, asylum, w it h h o ld in g of removal, or voluntary departure, and he has thus abandoned t h o s e claims. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Instead, he argues for the first time that the BIA and the IJ erred in failing to
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-60319 Document: 00511324716 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2010 No. 10-60319 a d d r e s s his request for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central A m e r ic a n Relief Act (NACARA). A s he concedes, Caniz did not exhaust his administrative remedies with r e s p e c t to his NACARA claim by raising it first before the BIA. This court t h e r e fo r e lacks jurisdiction to consider the claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Wang v . Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the petition for r e v ie w is DISMISSED.

2