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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-60283

Summary Calendar

UGHELLI RHORO UMUDE-LOUIS

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A027 680 072

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Ughelli Rhoro Umude-Louis, a citizen and native of Nigeria, petitions this

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Umude-Louis argues that: (1) the

BIA erroneously concluded that it lacked jurisdiction; (2) the immigration judge

clearly erred by affirming the Asylum Officer’s negative reasonable fear

determination; and (3) the record does not support the Asylum Officer’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 4, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) defines as an aggravated felony “a theft offense (including

1

receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least

one year.”

2

conclusions and negative reasonable fear determination. He additionally moves

for this court to appoint counsel. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Umude-Louis was admitted to the United States on September 29, 1983,

as a nonimmigrant student. After his status as a student was terminated by his

school in 1985, Umude-Louis remained in the United States without

authorization. Between August 2000 and June 2002, Umude-Louis pleaded

guilty to several counts of larceny and related offenses. As a result of his

criminal convictions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated

expedited administrative removal proceedings for aggravated felons, pursuant

to INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b). On August 21, 2008, ICE served UmudeLouis a Final Administrative Removal Order, finding that he was an alien, that

he was not a lawful permanent resident of the United States, that he had been

convicted of an aggravated felony and was, therefore, removable as an alien

convicted of an aggravated felony, pursuant to INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C.

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).1

Umude-Louis requested withholding of removal based on a fear of

persecution in Nigeria. He was referred to an Asylum Officer for a voluntary

reasonable fear interview, which was conducted and recorded in writing on

January 7, 2009. During the interview, Umude-Louis claimed that he feared

persecution in Nigeria based on his alleged political activities in that country

during the years 1979-1981. The following day, the Asylum Officer filed a

detailed written “Reasonable Fear Determination,” in which he concluded that

Umude-Louis’s claims of political activity and persecution were “implausible”

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
3

and “irreconcilable” with factual information on country conditions in the record.

The Asylum Officer also indicated that “[Petitioner’s] testimony was found not

credible in material respects.” 

Umude-Louis requested a review of the Asylum Officer’s negative

Reasonable Fear Determination by an immigration judge (IJ). On March 17,

2009, the IJ issued a Final Order affirming the Asylum Officer’s negative

Reasonable Fear Determination.

Umude-Louis then filed an appeal with the BIA, arguing the merits of his

withholding of removal claim. On April 14, 2009, the BIA issued a

one-paragraph decision, noting that based on “[c]ontrolling federal regulations

[which] provide that no appeal lies from an IJ’s decision reviewing a negative

Reasonable Fear Determination,” and dismissed the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 

On April 22, 2009, Umude-Louis filed his petition with this court. 

II. ANALYSIS

This court reviews its own jurisdiction de novo. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d

415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). We also review legal issues de novo. Obemudia v. INS,

988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1993).

A. Expedited Administrative Removal of Aggravated Felons 

Under INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), the Department of Homeland

Security (DHS) may determine deportability and issue a Final Administrative

Removal Order in the case of an alien who is not lawfully admitted for

permanent residence and who has been convicted of committing an aggravated

felony. Judicial review of Final Administrative Removal Orders is conducted

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 applies to aliens whose removal proceedings were initiated 2

on or after April 1, 1997. 

4

pursuant to INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(3); 2

see Flores-Ledezma v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, INA §

238(b) applies to aliens who are not lawful permanent residents and allows DHS

to determine the removability of such aliens under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8

U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and issue a removal order without referring the case

to an IJ (unless the alien requests referral to an IJ). INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. §

1228(b); 8 C.F.R. § 208.31. 

An alien who is subject to a Final Administrative Removal Order issued

under INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) is ineligible for any relief from removal

that is discretionary with the Attorney General. INA § 238(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. §

1228(b)(5). However, the alien is not barred from non-discretionary relief, such

as withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3),

under which the Attorney General may not remove an alien from the United

States if the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened on account of race,

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion.

If the alien requests withholding of removal, as Umude-Louis did in the

instant case, DHS must refer the case to an Asylum Officer, who conducts a

Reasonable Fear Determination. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(b), 238.1(f)(3). If the Asylum

Officer determines that the alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture,

the Asylum Officer must refer the case to an IJ. Id. § 208.31(e). However, if the

Asylum Officer makes a negative Reasonable Fear Determination, the alien may

request referral to an IJ for review of the negative Reasonable Fear

Determination. Id. §§ 208.31(g), 1208.31(g).

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
 If the IJ, in reviewing the negative Reasonable Fear Determination, “finds that the

3

alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien may submit Form I–589,

Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(2). If denied

relief, the alien may then appeal to the BIA. Id. § 1208.31(g)(2)(ii). In such circumstances, the

BIA has jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision on the merits of the alien’s withholding claim.

Id. The alien may then seek judicial review of the BIA’s decision on the merits of the alien’s

withholding claim, because the BIA had jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision, and the BIA’s

decision was the final agency action. Id.; see INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).

 If an alien does not request referral to an IJ, he may seek judicial review of the DHS 4

Final Administrative Removal Order. See INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(3).

5

The regulations provide that, if the IJ “concurs with the asylum officer’s

determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or

torture, then the case shall be returned to the Service for removal of the alien.”

Id. § 1208.31(g)(1). Further, the regulation expressly provides: “No appeal shall

lie from the immigration judge’s decision.” Id. Accordingly, in such instances, 3

there is no appeal available to the BIA, and the IJ’s Final Order is the final

agency action, because it is the end of the administrative review of DHS’s Final

Administrative Removal Order. Id. The alien may then seek judicial review of

the IJ’s final order and the underlying Final Administrative Removal Order by

timely filing a petition for review in a Circuit Court.4

B. Lack of Jurisdiction to Review the IJ’s Final Order 

A petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date

of the final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);

Salazar-Regino v. Trominski, 415 F.3d 436, 446 n.17 (5th Cir. 2005); Roy v.

Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 135 (5th Cir. 2004). A timely petition for review of a final

order of removal is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386,

405 (1995); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003)

(“This deadline is jurisdictional.”).

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
6

In this case, the IJ’s Final Order of March 17, 2009, was the final agency

decision regarding the Asylum Officer’s negative Reasonable Fear Determination

and DHS’s underlying Final Administrative Removal Order, because the

regulations provide that “[n]o [administrative] appeal shall lie from the

immigration judge’s decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1). Therefore, if

Umude-Louis desired to seek judicial review of the Final Administrative

Removal Order, his petition for review was due thirty days after the IJ’s March

17, 2009 Final Order, on Wednesday, April 16, 2009. INA § 242 (b)(1), 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(1). However, Umude-Louis did not file the instant petition for review

until April 22, 2009—six days after the statutory deadline.

Umude-Louis provides no legal basis for this court to assert jurisdiction

over his petition insofar as it challenges the IJ’s March 17, 2009 Final Order or

the underlying DHS Final Administrative Removal Order of August 19, 2008.

Accordingly, because Umude-Louis filed his petition for review outside the

thirty-day jurisdictional deadline permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), the

court lacks jurisdiction insofar as Umude-Louis challenges the IJ’s Final Order

of March 17, 2009. 

C. The BIA Properly Dismissed the Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction

Under the controlling regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1), the BIA’s

April 14, 2009 decision correctly and properly dismissed Umude-Louis’s appeal

for lack of jurisdiction, and, accordingly, declined to address any of the merits of

his claim for withholding of removal. The record demonstrates—and

Umude-Louis does not contest—that the BIA followed the applicable regulation

in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

As discussed above, the regulations provide that if an “immigration judge

concurs with the asylum officer’s determination that the alien does not have a

reasonable fear of persecution or torture . . . [n]o appeal shall lie from the

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/2010
7

immigration judge’s decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1). In the instant case, the

IJ’s Final Order of March 17, 2009, affirmed the negative Reasonable Fear

Determination and returned the case to the DHS “for removal of the alien.”

Further, that Final Order clearly stated on its face that “[t]here [was] no appeal

available.” Thus, the IJ’s Final Order properly and correctly applied the

controlling regulation, which provides:

If the immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer’s

determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of

persecution or torture, the case shall be returned to the Service for

removal of the alien. No appeal shall lie from the immigration

judge’s decision. 

8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1).

In spite of the clear notice to Umude-Louis of the finality of the IJ’s March

17, 2009 Final Order and the unavailability of further administrative review,

Umude-Louis declined to seek judicial review of the Final Order and instead

filed an appeal with the BIA, seeking review of the merits of his withholding of

removal claim. The BIA properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

stating that in such circumstances, “[c]ontrolling federal regulations provide that

no appeal lies from an Immigration Judge’s decision reviewing a negative

Reasonable Fear Determination.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the the petition for review is dismissed in part

and denied in remaining part. The motion to appoint counsel is also denied.

Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/04/2010