P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60462 Su m m ar y Cal endar
J OSE A AM AYA- OREL LA NA , P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L , Res po nde nt
Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 94 025 945

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L LY , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jose A
. A m aya - O rell an a (A m aya ) , a c iti zen a n d n ative of E lSa lvad or, s e e k s r e v i e w o f

t h e d e c i s i o n o f

t h e Bo a r do f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BIA) di s m i s s i n gh i s a p p e a la n dd e n y i n gh i s mo t i o n t o r e m a n dt h e c a s e t o t he i m m i gr at i o n j udg e (I J)
. Am ay a has c o nc e ded t hathe i s r e m o vabl e f o rha vi ng ille g a llye n te r e dth e U n ite d S ta te s . H e s o u g h t a s y lu m , w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l,
c ance l l at i on o f

r em oval , and “ spe c i alr ul e c ance l l at i on ” u n d er the N i c ar aguan United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 24, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60462

2 A dj u st m en tan d C en t ral A m eri can R el i ef A ct( N A C A R A)
. Th e I J deem ed A m aya ’ s vari ou s cl ai m s f or rel i ef f

rom rem oval t o h ave been ab an don ed becau se A m a y a ’ s co u n s e l fa ile dt o c o m p lyw ith t h e I J ’ s e x p lic it o r d e r s t o p r o v id e ce r ta in d ocu m en tati on an dsw orn de cl a ra ti on s s u p p o r tin g A m a ya ’ s cl a i m s. T h e IJ
o f fe r e d Am ay a t he o ppo r t uni t y t o f i l e at i m e l y m o t i o n f o rr e c o n si de r at i o n, b ut A m a y ad idn o t d o s o . O n appealtothe B IA , w her e he w as r epr es ent ed bynew c ounse l , A m aya d idn o t d ir e c tlych a l l e n g e th e IJ ’ s d e c is io n co n c e r n in gth e a b a n d o n m e n t o f h is
c la im s . R a th e r , h e a r g u e d th a t p r io r c o u n s e l w a s in e ffe c tiv e fo rfa ilin gto co m p ly
w i t h t he I J’ s o r de r . T h e B IAc o nc l ude d thatAm ay a hadno ts at i s f i e d the
re q u ire m e n ts o f I

n reLo zada , 19 I. & N
. D ec. 6 3 7 , 63 9 ( B IA19 8 8 ), n ece ssa ryto
es t abl i sh a c l ai m of i nef fec t ive c ounse l
. Th e B IA f urt hernot ed thatA m aya had fail e d t o s ho w t hat he had be e n pr ej udi c e d b y c o uns e l ’ s pe r f o r m anc e b e c aus e he h a dfa ile dto s h o w a n ye n tit le m e n t t o re lie f fr o m re m o v a l. In t h i s c ou rt , A m aya , t h rough cou n sel , con cedes t h at he i s not el i gibl e f or c a n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l u n d e rN A C A R A , b u t h e co n te n d s th a t t h e IJ im p r o p e r ly
r e quir e d hi m t o pr e s e nts w o r n e vi de nc e w it h r e ga r d t o hi s c l ai m s f o ra s yl um a nd
w i thhol di ng of

r em oval
. H e a r gues t hatt he I J s houl d have al l ow ed hi m to proceed w i t h t h ose c l ai m s, de s pit ec o uns e l ’ s f ai l u re t o provi de the docu m en t ati on ande vi de nc e r e quir e d f o rt he N AC AR A c l ai m . A m ay a di d no tr ai s e t hi s i s s ue b efore t h e B IA
. T h ere fore i t i s u n ex h a u sted , an dthis cou rt l a ck s j u ri sd i cti on to
c o n s id e rit. S ee W

a ngv. A sh cr oft , 2 6 0 F
. 3 d4 4 8 , 4 5 2

- 5 3 ( 5 t h Cir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 252 ( d)( 1)
. In ad di t i on , A m aya h as a ban don ed h i s c l ai m of i n ef fect ive coun sel b yfa ilin gto b r ie f it. S ee S o a d jed e v . A sh cr oft , 3 2 4 F .3d8 3 0 , 8 3 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). A m a ya ’ s p eti ti on f

or re view i s D IS M IS S E D IN P A R T an dD E N IE D IN P A R T
.