Halabi v. Ashcroft, 02-2201.
Decision Date | 21 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-2201.,02-2201. |
Citation | 316 F.3d 807 |
Parties | Rashid HALABI, Petitioner, v. John D. ASCHROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Edgar E. Lim, argued, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Stephen J. Flynn, argued, U.S. DOJ, Washington, DC, for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and FRANK,1 District Judge.
In this immigration case the petitioner, Rashid Halabi, a native and citizen of Israel, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("the Board") on April 16, 2002. In its order, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge's findings that the petitioner should be removed from the United States under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B), as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States for a time longer than authorized. The Board also affirmed the Immigration Judge's finding that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The latter finding was based on a determination that the petitioner could not demonstrate ten years' continuous physical presence in the United States and that his deportation would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to any qualifying person. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) and (D).
Although the petitioner timely appealed the Board's order,2 his appeal brief does not raise any substantive challenge to the merits of the order. Instead, the petitioner's brief addresses only a pending motion to reopen that he allegedly filed with the INS relating to a recent marriage and attempted change of status. The petitioner's administrative remedies concerning the motion to reopen are not exhausted. See INA § 242(b)(9), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (); INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) ( ). This court has not yet decided whether the exhaustion requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 are jurisdictional in nature. See Moussa v. INS, 302 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir.2002) ( ). Assuming we do have jurisdiction, however, the petitioner has not persuaded us that the finality requirements set forth in the statute should be disregarded in his case. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9). Accordingly, we will not address the petitioner's unexhausted arguments regarding his recent marriage and its effect on his immigration status.
The only final order before the court is the Board's order of April 16, 2002. It appears from the record that the petitioner admitted his removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). At issue, then, is the Board's affirmation of the Immigration Judge's finding that the petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he could not demonstrate the continuous physical presence and/or extreme hardship requisite to the Attorney General's discretionary exercise of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The controlling statute expressly states that denials of discretionary relief, such as that offered under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, are not subject to review by the courts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(B)(i) ( ); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1140-41 and n. 2 (9th Cir.2002) ( ). Even were we to find jurisdiction over the Board's § 1229b decision, we would be constrained to find that the petitioner waived any substantive objections to that ruling by failing to raise them in his appeal brief. See United States v. Simmons, 964 F.2d 763, 777 (8th Cir.1992) ().
Finally, we briefly address the petitioner's alleged constitutional claim. See Vasquez-Velezmoro v. INS, 281 F.3d 693, 696 (8th Cir.2002) ( ). The petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Etchu-Njang v. Gonzales
...of the Attorney General's judgment denying requests for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (2003) (per curiam), but Etchu-Njang contends that we have jurisdiction to review a constitutional claim based on his alleged ineffective assis......
-
Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. American Blast Fax, Inc.
...Practices Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 407.010. No issue has been raised on appeal about these dismissed claims. See Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir. 2003) (objection waived if not 3. American Blast Fax has not participated in this appeal and may no longer be in business. See Missouri......
-
Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft
...to review the exercise of that discretion. CDI Services, Inc. v. Reno, 278 F.3d 616, 619 (6th Cir.2002). See also Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir.2003) (no jurisdiction to review discretionary cancellation of removal); Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 786 n. 2 (8th Cir.2......
-
Sharadanant v. U.S.C.I.S., Civil No. 3:07-cv-54.
...that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions. Onyinkwa, 376 F.3d at 799; Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir.2003); see also Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 786 n. 2 (8th Cir.2002) (concluding that court has no jurisdiction over d......