Case ID: f-appx_394/html/0115-01.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

Machoudi Boladji KAMODJOU, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-60630
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 2, 2010.
    Linda Lavada Walker, Law Offices of Linda Walker, Stafford, TX, for Petitioner.
    Kiley L. Kane, John Clifford Cunningham, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sandra M. Heathman, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Machoudi Kamodjou’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Kamodjou’s appeal of the IJ’s decision. Kamodjou petitions for review of the BIA’s ruling.

The government argues that the petition for review should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review Ka-modjou’s challenge to the order of dismissal.. Kamodjou asserts that we have jurisdiction over all of his arguments because they are based in law and because refusal to consider them will result in a miscarriage of justice.

This court reviews its jurisdiction de novo. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir.2000). Kamodjou’s prior conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude bars us from exercising jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). In addition, we are barred from exercising jurisdiction because Kamodjou challenges the BIA’s discretionary denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order, the 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstanc.es set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.