Case ID: f-appx_92/html/0999-01.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

Albeiro Antonio LOPEZ-JARAMILLO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; Immigration and Naturalization Service; Social Security Officials; James W. Ziglar; David Venturella; Juan Campos; Caryl Thompson; United States Department of Justice, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-30839.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: April 15, 2004.
    Albeiro Antonio Lopez-Jaramillo, Colombia Sur America, pro se.
    Karen J. King, US Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Albeiro Antonio Lopez-Jaramillo (“Lopez”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for review of final decision of removal. A petition for review of a final order of removal is to be filed in the court of appeals, not in the district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2); see also Finlay v. INS, 210 F.3d 556, 557 (5th Cir.2000). Thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider Lopez’ petition for review of the final decision of removal. We VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND this case in part with instructions for the district court to dismiss Lopez’ petition for review of the final order of removal for lack of jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Lopez’ request for Social Security benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 402(n)(l); see also Marcello v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 851, 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1986); 20 C.F.R. § 404.464(a). Lopez has not briefed any arguments regarding the district court’s denial of his petition for a stay of deportation, therefore that issue is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Lopez’ motions for appointment of counsel on appeal and to receive social security benefits are DENIED.

, AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART; MOTIONS 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.