Case Name: Walter Alfredo LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-20
Citations: 95 F. App'x 80
Docket Number: No. 03-60640
Parties: Walter Alfredo LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 95
Pages: 80–81

Head Matter:
Walter Alfredo LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60640.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
DECIDED: April 20, 2004.
Maria T. Lopez, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Elisabeth Layton, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Luis Garcia, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director’s Office, El Paso, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Director’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Walter Alfredo Lopez-Gonzalez ("Lopez") petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from the decision of the immigration judge denying his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Lopez argues that he is entitled to an adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident alien and that this court has jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
As Lopez did not properly raise his claims before the BIA and exhaustion is statutorily mandated, this court does not have jurisdiction over the present petition. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2001); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (1994). As Lopez has not filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, this court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to that statute. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.