Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-06-60919/USCOURTS-ca5-06-60919-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Jorge Cardoso
Petitioner
Alberto R. Gonzales, U S Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 1, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60919

Summary Calendar

FERNANDO JORGE CARDOSO

Petitioner

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A75 399 836

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Jorge Cardoso, a native and citizen of Cape Verde, petitions this

court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(BIA) denial of his appeal

from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order of removal. Cardoso challenges the IJ’s

finding, based on his attorney’s concession, that he was removable based on an

aggravated felony conviction, his 2004 Massachusetts state court conviction of

assault and battery with dangerous weapon, in violation of MASS.GEN.LAWS ch.

 Case: 06-60919 Document: 0051301439 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/01/2007
No. 06-60919

2

265, § 15A(b), for which he received a suspended sentence of two years of

imprisonment.

Cardoso argues that his prior conviction is not an aggravated felony

because it does not meet the definition of a crime of violence. Although Cardoso

raised this argument before the BIA,the BIA declined to address it, holding that

Cardoso was bound by his attorney’s concession that his prior conviction

qualified as an aggravated felony. Because the BIA did not address whether

Cardoso’s prior conviction qualified as an aggravated felony and did not adopt

the IJ’s finding thatit did,there is nothing for this courtto review regarding this

issue. See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997).

Cardoso also argues that his prior conviction was not an aggravated felony

because it was for a misdemeanor offense and he was not sentenced to any time

in jail and that counsel was ineffective in conceding removability. Cardoso did

not raise these arguments in his brief to the BIA, and the record does not reflect

that he raised them in a motion to reopen. Cardoso asserts that he raised these

arguments in his motion to reconsider. However, the BIA’s ruling on this motion

is not part of the instant administrative record, and the motion to reconsider is

not the subject of the instant petition for review. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,

394 (1995). On the current record before this court for review, it cannot be said

that Cardoso exhausted his administrative remedies as to these arguments.

Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review these unexhausted

arguments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53

(5th Cir. 2001); Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2001).

Cardoso’s petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 06-60919 Document: 0051301439 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/01/2007