Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60631 Su m m ar y Cal endar

FI LI PP O S ARDEL LA , 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 018 592 352

B ef ore W IE N E R , D eM O S S , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * F i l i pp o Sa rdel l a, a cit i zen a n d n ative of I ta ly, petit i on s t h i s c ou rtf or r e vi e w o f

t he Boa r d o f

I m m i gr at i o n Appe al s ’( BI A’ s ) o r de ra f f i r m i ng t he Im m ig r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s (IJ ’ s ) fin a l o r d e ro f r e m o v a l a n dth e IJ ’ s d e n ia l o f h is ap pl i cat i on f

or c an cel l ati on of

rem oval. In h i s peti t i on f or revi ew , S ardel l a does
n otcontes tt h e B IA ’ s determ i n ati on t h at he w as rem ovab l e as c h argedbecau se h e ha d tw o p ri or conv i ct i on s f or cri m es i n volvi n g m oralt u rpi t u de an d on e pri or United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 7, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60631 Document: 00511134458 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 60631

2 c o n v i c t i o n f

o rac o n t r o l l e ds u b s t a n c e o f fe n s e . I n s t e a d , h e r a i s e s c l a i ms c o n c e r n in gth e d e n ia l o f h is a p p lic a tio n fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l. S ardel l a, w h o w as convi ct ed i n 2 005 of possessi on of crack cocai n e in N ew Y or k and w ho had pr i ors t at e dr ug c onvi c t i ons , cont ends t hatthe B IAer r ed by t r e at i ng hi s 2 00 5 c o nvi c t i o n a s e qui val e ntt o a n a gg r av at e d f e l o ny unde rt he
r e c id iv is t p r o v is io n s o f th e C o n tr o lle dS u b s ta n c e s A c t
. S ee2 1 U .S .C
. § 8 4 4 (a). The BI A c o r r e c t l y de t e r m i ne d thatSa r de l l a s ho ul d b e c o ns i dere d a s ha vi ng c o m m itt e da n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n yfo rim m ig r a tio n la w p u r p o s e s . S ee Carach u ri

- R osend o v. Hol d er , 5 7 0 F .3 d2 6 3 , 2 6 5 -6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . gran t ed , 13 0 S. Ct
. 10 12 (D e c . 14 , 20 09 ) ( N o . 09

- 60 )
. Ther e f o r e , as t h e B IAco nc l ude d, S a r d e llaw a s in e lig ib le fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b
. T h e rem ai n i n g argu m en t s rai sed i n S ardel l a’ s p et i t i on forrevi ew l i kew i se fai lt o s how er r ori n co nnect i on w i t h t he B IA ’ s dec i si on . H i s c ont ent i on t hat
ven u e i s i m proper i n t h i s court i s u n ava i l i n g. B ecau se h i s i m m igr ati on p r o c e e d in g s w e r e co m p le te dinalo c a tio n w ith in th is cir c u it, v e n u e is p r o p e rin th is co u r t. S ee Ja m av. G on zales , 4 3 1 F .3 d2 3 0 , 2 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); seealso 8 U
. S. C. § 12 52 (b) ( 2)
. I ns o fara s Sa r de l l a r ai s e s ac hall e nget o t he de c i s i o n o f t he D epar t m entof

H om el and Secur i t y c onc er ni ng t he l oc at i on i n w hi c h he w as d e ta in e d , th is c h a lle n g e is u n a v a ilin gb e c a u s e s u c h d e c is io n s a r e n o t a m e n a b le to ju d ic ia l re v ie w . S ee8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 6 (e ). Fi nal l y, Sarde l l a’ s due pro c es s c l ai m fai l s bec ause t he r ec or d s how s t hat h e re c e iv e da ll th e p r o c e s s h e w a s d u e . S ee Manzano - G ar c i a v . G on zal es , 413 F
. 3 d4 6 2 , 4 7 0

- 7 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 )
. Her e c e iv e dn o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s th i m, and t he i m m i g r a t i o n j ud g e who c o nd uc t e dt he p r o c e e d i ng s c o nd uc t e ds e v e r al h e a r in g s a t w h ic h c o u n s e l s p o k e o n h is b e h a lf. S e eid
. To t he e xt e nthe c o nt e nds t hathi s due pr o c e s s r i ght s w e r e i nf r i nge d be c aus e he di d no t r e c e iveahe ar i ng o n h is re q u e s t fo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a l inh is p r e fe r r e dlo c a tio n , th is
a r g u m e n t fa ils b e c a u s e h e h a dn o rig h t t o s u c h ah e a r in g . S ee G u t i errez- Morales v . Ho m an , 4 6 1 F
. 3 d6 0 5 , 6 0 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED
. Case: 09-60631 Document: 00511134458 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010