Case ID: f-appx_257/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yolande CHARLESTIN, Madjina Rosegaina Josue, Ludovic Josue, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 06-5851-ag(L), 06-5854-ag(con).
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2007.
    Melissa Desvarieux, Christophe & Associates, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Nehal H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
    PRESENT: RICHARD J. CARDAMONE, JON 0. NEWMAN, and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a respondent in this case.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioners Yolande Charlestin, Madjina Rosegaina Josué, and Ludovic Josué seek review of BIA’s orders affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) which denied Charlestin’s request for adjustment of status pursuant to the Haitian Immigrant Refugee Fairness Act, Pub.L. No. 105-277, § 902(b), 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-538-542 (1998) and denied Madjina Rosegaina Josue’s and Ludovic Josue’s derivative requests for the same. In re Yolande Charlestin, No. [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 27, 2006), aff'g Nos. [ A XX XXX XXX ], [ A XX XXX XXX ], [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 10, 2005); In re Madjina Rosegaina Josue, Ludovic Josue, Nos. [ A XX XXX XXX ], [ A XX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Nov. 27, 2006), aff'g Nos. [ A XX XXX XXX ], [ A XX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Hartford May 10, 2005). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

, On appeal, petitioner raises one primary argument. She challenges the 1991 determination by an IJ that she was inadmissible on the basis of wilful misrepresentations to immigration authorities. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Charlestin’s failure to challenge the IJ’s inadmissibility determination in her initial appeal to the BIA is fatal to our ability to consider her argument. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Foster v. INS, 876 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004). Accordingly, her challenge is improperly raised at this time.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED.