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. 09-60631

Summary Calendar

FILIPPO SARDELLA,

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. A018 592 352

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Filippo Sardella, a citizen and native of Italy, petitions this court for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) order affirming the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) final order of removal and the IJ’s denial of his

application for cancellation of removal. In his petition for review, Sardella does

not contest the BIA’s determination that he was removable as charged because

he had two prior convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude and one prior

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 7, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 09-60631 Document: 00511134458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010
No. 09-60631

2

conviction for a controlled substance offense. Instead, he raises claims

concerning the denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

Sardella, who was convicted in 2005 of possession of crack cocaine in New

York and who had prior state drug convictions, contends that the BIA erred by

treating his 2005 conviction as equivalent to an aggravated felony under the

recidivist provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).

The BIA correctly determined that Sardella should be considered as having

committed an aggravated felony for immigration law purposes. See

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263, 265-68 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. granted,

130 S.Ct. 1012 (Dec. 14, 2009) (No. 09-60). Therefore, as the BIA concluded,

Sardella was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. 

The remaining arguments raised in Sardella’s petition for review likewise

fail to show error in connection with the BIA’s decision. His contention that

venue is improper in this court is unavailing. Because his immigration

proceedings were completed in a location within this circuit, venue is proper in

this court. See Jama v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 230, 232 (5th Cir. 2005); see also

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). Insofar as Sardella raises a challenge to the decision of the

Department of Homeland Security concerning the location in which he was

detained, this challenge is unavailing because such decisions are not amenable

to judicial review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). 

Finally, Sardella’s due process claim fails because the record shows that

he received all the process he was due. See Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413

F.3d 462, 470-71 (5th Cir. 2005). He received notice of the charges against him,

and the immigration judge who conducted the proceedings conducted several

hearings at which counsel spoke on his behalf. See id. To the extent he contends

that his due process rights were infringed because he did not receive a hearing

on his request for cancellation of removal in his preferred location, this

argument fails because he had no right to such a hearing. See Gutierrez-Morales

v. Homan, 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 09-60631 Document: 00511134458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010