Case ID: f-appx_518/html/0306-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mamadou Oumar THIAM, also known as Mamadou Thiam, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-60275
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 12, 2013.
    Jonathan Denis Ryan, Director, Raices, Inc., San Antonio, TX, for Petitioner.
    John Beadle Holt, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Mamadou Oumar Thiam petitions this court for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that a favorable exercise of discretion on Thiam’s request for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) was not warranted. The BIA also determined that Thiam was not eligible for a waiver of removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(7) or for special rule cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(2). Thiam has abandoned any challenge to these latter determinations by failing to address them in his petition for review. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004).

Thiam argues that, although the BIA’s order stated the correct legal standards, its adverse decision demonstrates that the BIA improperly conducted a de novo review and reweighed the facts of the case. The BIA is entitled to review de novo the immigration judge’s decision whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). We do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that a favorable exercise of its discretion to grant § 1229b relief was not warranted. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©; Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir.2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004). Accordingly, Thiam’s petition for review is DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.