Case Name: Essien Itam ESSIEN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-07
Citations: 354 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 08-61056
Parties: Essien Itam ESSIEN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
Essien Itam ESSIEN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-61056
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 7, 2009.
Essien Itam Essien, Sugar Land, TX, pro se.
Briena Lorraine Strippoli, Thomas Ward Hussey, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Essien Itam Essien, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, petitions for review of the October 28, 2008 Final Order of Deportation or Removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). Our review of the briefs, pleadings, and administrative record satisfies us that this Petition for Review should be dismissed in part and denied in part. As noted in the Respondent's appellate brief, (1) Petitioner has failed to set forth with specificity any argument in support of the issues advanced for review; (2) we lack jurisdiction over the BIA's decision of March 18, 2009; (3) our jurisdiction to review the October 28, 2008 decision of the BIA is severely limited by Petitioner's failure to demonstrate exceptional circumstances with specificity; and (4) any disposition by this court of the BIA's denial of Petitioner's Motion To Reopen would be futile, mooting any such review. Accordingly, the Petition for Review filed with this court by Petitioner is
DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.