Case Name: Carine Liliane UMUZAYIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hipolito ACOSTA, Interim District Director, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Houston, Texas, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 03-30253
Parties: Carine Liliane UMUZAYIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hipolito ACOSTA, Interim District Director, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Houston, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Carine Liliane UMUZAYIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hipolito ACOSTA, Interim District Director, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Houston, Texas, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-30253.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 30, 2003.
Joseph Bernard La Rocea, David Ware & Associates, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Blair T. O’Connor, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Carine Liliane Umuzayire appeals from the district court's dismissal of her declaratory-judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Umuzayire argues that the district court had jurisdiction to review her asylum application.
Because Umuzayire is required to exhaust her administrative remedies by re newing her request for asylum in the context of removal proceedings, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the present case. See Kashani v. Nelson, 793 F.2d 818, 826-27 (7th Cir.1986). As the district court lacked jurisdiction, we too lack jurisdiction and therefore must dismiss Umuzayire's appeal.
AFFIRMED DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.