Case ID: f-appx_293/html/0330-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fortunato Elenio LINDAO-DIAZ, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60766
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 22, 2008.
    Fortunato Lindao-Diaz, Los Fresnos, TX, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.
    
      Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Fortunato Elenio Lindao-Diaz (Lindao), a citizen and native of Ecuador, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s final order of removal. Lindao argues that his New York conviction for sexual abuse in the first degree was not a conviction for an aggravated felony or a crime of violence and that he is entitled to cancellation of removal. He asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not deprive this court of jurisdiction over his petition for review. He additionally argues that removal statutes should be construed in favor of aliens. The government maintains that Lindao cannot raise these issues because did not raise them before the BIA and that Lindao’s conviction was a conviction for an aggravated felony depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider Lindao’s petition under § 1252(a)(2)(C).

Lindao did not raise before the BIA any of the arguments he raises in this court. He does not argue, and has not shown, that his administrative remedies were inadequate. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir.2001). As Lin-dao failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, we lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for review. See Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1986). As this case does not present exceptional circumstances, Lindao’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.1982).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.