Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60283 Su m m ar y Cal endar

U G H EL LI RH O RO U M U D E- LO U I S P et i t i on er v. ERI C H. HOLDER, J R. , U. S

. AT TORNEY GENERAL R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s B I AN o. A 027 680 072

B e fo r e K IN G , S T E W A R T , a n d H AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * U g h e lli R h o r o U m u d e -L o u is , a c itiz e n a n d n a tiv e o f N ig e r ia , p e tit io n s th is
c o u r t fo r re vi e w o f a n o r d e ro f

t h e Bo a r d o f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BI A) di s m i s s i ng hi s a ppe alf o rl ac k of

j ur i s di c t i o n. U m ude

- Loui s ar gue s t hat : ( 1) t he B I A er r oneo usl y c onc l uded t hat i t l ac ked j uri sdi c t i on; ( 2) t he i m m i gr at i on j udge
c l earl y erred by af f i r m i ng t he A sy l um O f f i c er ’ s negat ive r eas onabl e f ear d e t e r m in a t io n ; a n d (3 ) t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o ts u p p o r tth e A s y lu m O ff ic e r ’s United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 4, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/04/20108 U.S.C. § 1 101 (a)(43)(G) defines a s an aggravated felony “a theft offen se (includin g 1 re ceip t of stol en prop erty) or b urglary of fe n sef orwhichth e termof im pris on me nt [i s] at le a st one year. ” 2 concl u si on s and neg ative reasona bl e fear determ i n ati on . H e add i t i on al l y m oves fo rth is co u r t t o a p p o in t c o u n s e l.

I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND U m ude- Loui s w as adm i t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es on Sept em ber29, 1983,
a s a n o n im m ig r a n t st u d e n t. A fte rh is s ta tu s a s a s tu d e n t w a s te r m in a te d b yh is
s c ho o li n 1 9 8 5 , Um u d e - Lo u i s r e m a i n e di n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s wi t h o ut
au t h ori zati on . B et w een A u gu st200 0 an d Ju n e 200 2, U m u d e -L o u i s pl ead ed g u ilty to s e v e r a l co u n ts o f la r c e n ya n d re la te d o ffe n s e s . A s a re s u lt o f h is cri m i n al c o n vi ct i on s, I m m i grati on an d C u st om s E n f orcem en t( IC E ) i n i t i ated
e xp e di t e d a dm i ni s t r at i ve r e m o va l pr o c e e di ngs f o ra gg r av at e d f

e l o ns , pur s uant t o IN A § 238 (b) , 8 U
. S

. C

. § 122 8(b)

. O n A u gu st 21, 200 8, IC E se rv e d U m u deLoui s a Fi nal A dm i ni st r at i ve R em ovalO r der , f i ndi ng t hathe w as an al i en, t hat h e w as not a l aw f

u l perm an en t resi den t of t h e U n i t ed Stat es, t h at h e ha d been
conv i c t e d o f

a n a gg r av at e d f

e l o ny andw as , t he r e f o r e , r e m o va bl e a s a n a l i en c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y , p u r s u a n t t o I NA § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) (A) (i i i) , 8 U. S

. C. 1 2 2 7 (a )(2)(A)(i ii). 1 U m ude

- Loui s r e que s t e d w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l ba s e d o n a fear of persecuti on i n N i geri a. H e w as ref err ed to an A syl u m O f f i cer f or a vol u n t ary reasona bl e fear i n t ervi ew , w h i ch w as cond u ct ed an d recor ded i n w ri t i n g on Jan u ary 7, 200 9. D u ri n g t h e i n t ervi ew , U m u de-Lou i s c l ai m ed that he feared persecuti on i n N i geri a ba sed on hi s al l eged pol i t i calactivities in t h at c ou n t ry dur i ng t he y e ar s 1 97 9- 19 81
. The f o l l o w i ng da y, t he Asy l um O f f i c e rf i l e d a det ai l ed w r i t t en “ R eas onabl e Fear D et er m i nat i on, ” i n w hi c h he c onc l uded t hat U m u de-Lou i s’ s cl ai m s of pol i t i cal act ivi t y an d persec u t i on w e re “ i m pl au sibl e” Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/04/20103

and“ i rrec on ci l able” w i t h fact u ali n f orm ati on on coun t ry condit i on s i n t h e re c o r d. T h e A syl u m O f

f i cer al so i n di cat ed that “[ P et i t i on er’ s] test i m on y w as foun d n ot cred ib l e in m a terialresp ects. ” U m ude- Loui s r eques t ed a r evi ew of t he A sy l um O f

f i c er ’ s negat i ve R eas onabl e FearD et er m i nat i on by an i m m i gr at i on j udge ( I J)

. O n M a rch 17, 2009, t he IJ i ss ued a Fi nalO r deraf f i r m i ng t he A sy l um O f f i c er ’ s negat i ve Reas o nab l e Fe arD e t e r m i nat i o n. U m u d e -L o u is th e n file d a n a p p e a l w ith t h e B IA , a r g u in gth e m e r its o f h is wi t h h o l d i n g o f r e m o v a l c l a i m . On Ap r i l 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e BI A i s s ue d a
o ne - pa r ag r ap h de c i s i o n, no t i ng t hatb as e d o n “ [ c ] o nt r o l l i ng fe de r alr e gul at i o ns [ w hi c h] pr ovi de t hatno appe all i es f r om an IJ’ s dec i si on r evi ew i ng a nega t i ve R eason able F ear D et erm i n ati on , ” an d d ism iss ed the ap pea lf or l ack of ju r is d ic tio n . O n A p r il 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , U m u d e -L o u is file d h is p e tit io n w ith th is co u r t. II. A N A L Y S IS T h is co u r t r e v ie w s its o w n ju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . Ne h me v . I NS , 252 F. 3d 4 1 5 , 4 2 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e a ls o r e v ie w le g a l is s u e s d e n o v o . Ob e mu d i av . I NS , 9 8 8 F .2d 5 9 5 , 5 9 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). A . E x p ed i ted A d m i n i strati v e R em o v a lof A g g ra v a ted F elon s U nde rI N A § 2 38 (b) , 8 U
. S. C. § 1 22 8(b) , the D e pa r t m e nto f H o m e l and Sec uri t y ( D H S) m ay de t er m i ne depo r t abi l i t y and i ss ue a Fi nalA dm i ni st r at i ve R em oval O rder i n t h e case of an al i en w h o i s not l aw fu ll y a dm i t t ed f or perm an en tres i den ce and w h o ha s been con vi ct ed of com m i t t i n g an aggrav ated fel on y. Ju di ci al revi ew of F i n al A dm i n i st rat ive R em oval O rde rs is condu ct ed Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/04/2010INA § 2 42, 8 U .S.C. § 1 252app lie s to aliens whose removal procee dings were initiat ed 2 onor aft erApril1 , 1 9 9 7
. 4 p u rs u a n t to IN A § 2 4 2 , 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2
. IN A§ 2 3 8 (b )(3), 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 2 8 (b )(3); 2
seeFlores - L edezm a v. G on zal es , 4 1 5 F. 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 7 9 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. T h u s , I NA § 2 3 8 (b ) a p p l i e s t o a l i e n s w h o a r e n o tl a wf u lp e r ma n e n tr e s i d e n t s a n d a l l o ws D HS to d e te r m in e th e re m o v a b ility o f s u c h a li e n s u n d e rIN A§ 2 3 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii), 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1227 ( a) ( 2) (A) (i i i) , an d i ssue a rem oval order w i t h ou tref erri n g t h e case to a n IJ (u n le s s th e a lie n re q u e s ts r e fe r r a l to a n IJ ). IN A§ 2 3 8 (b ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 8 (b ); 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .3 1
. A n a l i en w h o i s s u bj ectt o a F i n alA dm i n i st rat ive R em oval O rder i ssued und erI N A § 238(b) , 8 U
. S. C

. § 1228(b) i s i nel i gibl e f or any r el i ef f

r om r em oval th a t is d i s c r e t i o n a r yw ith th e A tt o r n e yG e n e r a l. IN A§ 2 3 8 (b )(5 ), 8 U .S .C . § 122 8(b) ( 5)

. H ow ever, the ali en i s not barred f rom non - di scr et i on ary rel i ef, such
a s w ith h o ld in gof re m o v a l pu rs u a n t to IN A§ 2 4 1 (b )( 3 ), 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 3 1 (b )(3),
u n der w h i ch the A t t orney G en era lm ay n otrem ove an al i en f rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates i f

t h e al i en ’ s l i fe or f reedom w ou l d be threatened on accoun tof race, r el i gi on, nat i onal i t y, m em ber shi p i n a par t i c ul ars oc i algr oup, or pol i t i c al
o pi ni o n. I f t he a l i e n r e que s t s w i t hho l di ng o f r e m o va l , a s U m ude

- Loui s di d i n t he i n st an tcas e , D H S m u stref er t h e case t o an A syl u m O f f i cer, w h o condu ct s a Reas o nab l e Fe arD e t e r m i nat i o n. 8 C. F. R. § § 2 08
. 31 (b) , 2 38
. 1(f ) ( 3)

. I f t he Asy l um O f f i cer determ i n es t h at t h e al i en ha s a r eason able fear of persecuti on or t ort u re, th e A s y lu m O ffic e rm u s t r e fe rth e ca s e to a n IJ
. Id
. § 2 08
. 31 ( e )

. H o w e ve r , i f t he A sy l um O f

f i c erm akes a neg at i ve R eas onabl e FearD et er m i nat i on, t he al i en m ay r eques t r ef

er r al t o an I J f

or r evi ew of t he negat ive R eas on a b l e F ear D e te r m in a tio n . Id
. § § 2 0 8 .31 (g), 1 2 0 8 .31 (g). Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2010If th e IJ, in reviewin g the negative Rea sonableFear Determin atio n, “finds that th e 3 alien has a reason abl e fe ar of persecutionor tortur e, th e alie n maysub mit Form I–58 9, Applicationfor Asylum and Withhol ding of Removal.” See 8 C.F .R. § 1 208 .31(g)(2). If denied relief , th e alienmayth enapp eal toth e B IA

. Id
. § 120 8.31 (g)(2)(ii). In such circu mstance s, the B IA h a s j uri sdictionto review th e IJ ’sd ecis io no n th e merits of th e alien’swithhol din gclaim
. Id . The alien mayth en seek j udicialreview of the BIA’s decision on themerits of the alien’s withholdingcl aim, because the BIA had jurisdictionto review the IJ’s decision , an d th e BIA’s de ci sionwa s th e fin al a gencyactio n . Id
. ; see I NA § 2 4 2 (a)( 1 ), 8U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)( 1 ). If analiendoe s notr equ es t referr al toanIJ , hemayse ekj u dici al review of th e DHS 4 Fin al Adm inis tr ative R em oval Order . See I NA § 2 3 8 (b)( 3), 8U .S .C

. § 1 2 2 8 (b)( 3). 5 T h e r e g u la t io n s p r o v id e th a t , if th e I J “ c o n c u r s w it h th e a s y lu m o ff ic e r ’s determ i n ati on t h at th e a li en does not hav e a reasonab l e f ear of persecuti on or to r tu r e , th e n th e ca s e s h a ll b e re tu r n e d to th e S e r v ic e fo rre m o v a l o f th e a lie n .” Id . § 1 2 0 8 .3 1 (g)(1 ). F u r th e r , th e re g u la tio n e x p r e s s lyp r o v id e s : “N o a p p e a l s h a ll lie fr o m t h e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’ s d e c is io n .” Id
. A ccor di n gl y, i n such i n st an ces, 3 t her e i s no appe a la va i l abl e t o t he B I A , and t he I J’ s Fi nalO r deri s t he f i nal agenc y ac t i on, bec ause i t i s t he end of t he adm i ni st r at ive r evi ew of D H S’ s Fi nal A d m in i s t r a tiv e R e m o v a l O r d e r . Id
. T h e al i en m ay then seek j u di ci alrevi ew of t he I J’ s f

i nalor derand t he under l yi ng Fi nalA dm i ni st r at ive R em ovalO r derby ti m ely fi l i n g a pe ti ti on f or re view i n a C i rcu i t C ou rt. 4 B . L ack of

Ju ri sdi ct i on t o R evi ew t h e I J’ s Fi n al O rder Ape ti ti on for rev i ew m u st b e fi l ed n ot later th a n thirty d a ys after the da te
o f th e fi n a l ord e r o f re m o v a l. IN A§ 2 4 2 (b )(1), 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b )( 1 ); Sa laza r-R egi no v. Trom i nski , 4 1 5 F .3 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 6 n .1 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); R oy v. A sh cr oft , 389 F. 3d 132, 135 ( 5t h C i r . 2004)

. At i m el y pe t i t i on f orr evi ew of

a f i nal
o r d e ro f r e m o v a l is “ m a n d a to r ya n d ju r is d ic tio n a l.” S t o n ev . I NS , 514 U
. S. 386, 4 0 5 (1 9 9 5 ); Na v a rr o -Mira n d av. A sh cr oft , 330 F.3d 672, 676 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (“T h is d e a d li n e is j u risd iction a l. ”). Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/20106

In t h i s c ase, t h e I J’ s FinalO rder of M arch 17 , 200 9, w as t h e f i n alagen cy de cisio n re g a rd in g t h e A syl u m O f f i cer’ s nega t ive R eason able F ear D et erm i n ati on andD H S’ s und e r l yi ng Fi nalAdm i ni s t r at ive Rem o va lO r de r , b e c ause t he
r e gul at i o ns pr o vi de t hat“ [ n] o [ ad m i ni s t r at ive ] a ppe als hal ll i e f r o m t he im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’ s d e c is io n .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .3 1 (g)(1 ). T h e r e fo r e , if U m u d e- Loui s des i r ed t o s ee k j udi c i alr evi ew of t he Fi nalA dm i ni st r at i ve R em oval O rder, h i s p et i t i on forrevi ew w as d u e thir t y da ys a f t er t h e I J’ s M arch 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 Fi n a l Or d e r , o n W e d n e s d a y , Ap r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 9
. I NA § 2 4 2 (b ) ( 1 ) , 8 U. S

. C. § 125 2(b) ( 1)

. H ow ever, U m u de-Lou i s di d n ot f i l e t h e i n st an t peti t i on f or r evi ew u n t i lA pri l22, 200 9— si x da ys af t er t h e st atutor y dea dl i n e. U m u de-Lou i s provi des n o l egal b a sis for t h i s c ou rtt o asser tj u ri sdi ct i on over hi s pet i t i on i n sofar as i t cha l l en ges t h e IJ’ s M arch 17 , 200 9 F i n alO rder or t he under l yi ng D H S F i nalA dm i ni st r at ive R em ovalO r der of A ugust19, 2008. Acc o r di ngl y, b e c aus e U m ude

- Loui s f i l e d hi s pe t i t i o n f

o rr e vi e w o ut s i de t he t hi r t y- da y j u r i s di c t i o nalde ad l i ne pe r m i t t e d un de r8 U
. S. C. § 1 25 2(b) ( 1) , t he court l acks j u ri sdi ct i on insofar a s U m u de-Lou i s ch al l en ges the IJ’ s FinalO rder
o f M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 9
. C . Th e BIA P r oper l y D i s m i s s ed t he A ppeal f or La c k of

Juri s di ct i on U n d e rth e c o n t r o ll in gr e g u la t io n a t 8 C .F .R . § 1 2 0 8 .3 1 (g )( 1 ), th e B I A ’s A pri l14, 2009 dec i si on cor r ec t l y and pr ope r l y di sm i ss ed U m ude- Loui s’ s appeal f or l ack of j u ri sdi ct i on , an d, accordi n gl y, decl i n ed t o ad dress an y of t h e m eri t s of hi s c l ai m f

o rw i t hho l di ng o f

r e m o va l
. The r e c o r d d e m o ns t r at e s — and U m u de-Lou i s does n otcontes t

— t h at t h e B IAf ol l ow ed the ap pl i cabl e regul ati on i n di s m i s s i ng t he a ppe alf o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n. A s di sc uss ed abov e, t he r egul at i ons pr ovi de t hati f an “ i m m i gr at i on j udge
concu rs w i t h t h e asyl u m of f i cer’ s det erm i n ati on t h at t h e al ien does not hav e a r e as o nab l e fe aro f

perse c ut i o n o rt o r t ur e . . . [ n] o a ppe als hal ll i e f r o m t he Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/20107

i m m i gr at i o n j udg e ’ s de c i s i o n. ” 8 C. F. R. § 1 20 8. 31 ( g) ( 1)

. I n t he i ns t antc as e , t he I J’ s Fi nalO r derof

M ar c h 17, 2009, af f i rm ed t he negat ive R eas onabl e Fear D e te r m in a tio n a n d r e tu r n e d th e c a s e to th e D H S “fo r r e m o v a l o f th e a l ie n .” Fu r t her , t hat Fi nal O r der c l ear l y st at ed on i t s fac e t hat“ [ t ] her e [w as ] no appe al
av ai l ab l e . ” Thus , t he I J’ s Fi nalO r der properl y andc o r r e c t l y ap pl i e d t he control l i n g regulat i on , w h i ch provides: I f t h e im m ig r a t io n ju d g e c o n c u r s w it h th e a s y lu m o ff ic e r ’s determ i n ati on t h at t h e al i en does not hav e a reasonab l e fear of persecuti on or t ort u re, t h e case s h al lbe ret u rned t o t h e Servi ce f or re m o va lo f

t he a l i e n. N o a ppe als hal ll i e f r o m t he i m m i grati on ju d g e ’ s d e c is io n . 8 C .F .R
. § 1 2 0 8 .31 (g)(1). In spi t e of

t h e cl ear noti ce t o U m u de-Lou i s of the f i n al i t y of

t h e I J’ s M arch 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 F i n a lOr d e ra nd t he u n a v a i l a b i l i t yo f f u r t h e ra d mi n i s t r a t iv e r e v i e w, U m ude- Loui s dec l i ned t o s ee k j udi c i alr evi ew of t he Fi nalO r derand i nst ead f i l ed an app eal w i t h t h e B IA , seeki n g revi ew of t h e m eri t s of

hi s w i t h h ol di n g of
r e m o va lc l ai m . T h e B I A pr o pe r l y di s m i s s e d t he a ppe alf o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n, st at i ng t hati n suc h c i r c um s t a nc e s , “ [c ] o nt r o l l i ngf e d e r a lr e g ul a t i ons pr ovi de t hat
no a p p e a ll i e s f

r o m a n I m m i g r a t i o n J ud g e ’ s d e c i s i o n r e v i e wi nga n e g at i ve R ea son a b l e F ea r D eterm i n a ti on . ” S ee8 C .F .R
. § 1 2 0 8 .31 (g)(1). I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, t h e t h e peti t i on f or revi ew i s di sm i ssed i n part andde ni e d i n r e m ai ni ng pa r t
. The m o t i o n t o a ppo i ntc o uns e li s a l s o de ni e d. Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/04/2010