Case ID: f-appx_139/html/0639-02.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

Maria Laura GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60490.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided July 28, 2005.
    Daniel M. Kowalski, Austin, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Gregory D. Mack, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, AND OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maria Laura Gonzalez appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming without opinion the denial of her application for cancellation of removal by the Immigration Judge (IJ). She argues that the IJ erred in denying her request for a continuance and that the denial of the continuance violated her due process rights. Because Gonzalez did not raise this issue in her appeal to the BIA, we do not have jurisdiction to review her challenge of the denial of her request for a continuance. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001). Further, because the error was one that was correctable by the BIA, Gonzalez’s due process claim is subject to the exhaustion requirement and, therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review her due process claim. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 389-90 (5th Cir.2001); see also Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 & n. 4 (5th Cir.1997).

Gonzalez also argues that the IJ erred in denying her application for cancellation of removal based on an erroneous legal interpretation of Faddah v. INS, 553 F.2d 491 (5th Cir.1977). Because the IJ’s decision ultimately involved the exercise of discretion, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.2003).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.