Case Name: Fidelis Osazuwa IDAHOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; United States Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-20
Citations: 111 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 04-20246
Parties: Fidelis Osazuwa IDAHOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; United States Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Fidelis Osazuwa IDAHOSA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; United States Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-20246.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
Fidelis Osazuwa Idahosa, Houston, TX, pro se.
Howard E. Rose, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fidelis Osazuwa Idahosa appeals, pro se, the dismissal, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, of his complaint seeking review of the denial of his application for naturalization. Our review is de novo. Aparicio v. Blakeway, 302 F.3d 437, 441 (5th Cir.2002).
Courts may review the denial of an application for naturalization only after it has been reviewed in an administrative hearing before an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Idahosa did not comply with the applicable regulations for obtaining such a hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.2; 8 U.S.C. § 1421(c). Because Idahosa did not exhaust the available administrative remedies, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of his application for naturalization. See 8 C.F.R. § 336.9(d); see also Townsend v. United States Dep't of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir.1986).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.