Case Name: Fernando LOPEZ-BARRAZA, 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: 2014-08-20
Citations: 578 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 13-60613
Parties: Fernando LOPEZ-BARRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
Fernando LOPEZ-BARRAZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-60613
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2014.
Felipe D.J. Millan, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.
Thankful Townsend Vanderstar, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Fernando Lopez-Barraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's dismissal of his challenge to a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his request for voluntary departure. He argues that his due process rights were infringed because the IJ erred when weighing the factors in favor of and against the requested relief.
As a general rule, we lack jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the discretionary denial of a request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f), § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Vidal v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 250, 252 (5th Cir.2007); Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir.1997) (concluding that § 1252(a)(2)(B) precluded consideration of challenge to denial of voluntary departure). Nonetheless, we retain jurisdiction to consider constitutional' claims and legal issues. See § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372-73 (5th Cir.2014).
Our review of Lopez-Barraza's brief shows that it "presents no constitutional question or question of law." See Sattani, 749 F.3d at 373. Rather, he simply raises "an abuse of discretion argument cloaked in constitutional garb." See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.2006) (internal brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted). Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for want 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.