Case Name: Yaya Momo KAMARA, Petitioner v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-08
Citations: 102 F. App'x 420
Docket Number: No. 03-60619
Parties: Yaya Momo KAMARA, Petitioner v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 420–421

Head Matter:
Yaya Momo KAMARA, Petitioner v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60619.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 8, 2004.
J Phelps Jones, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Jennifer Paisner, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yaya Momo Kamara, a purported citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of the BIA's final order of removal. Kamara argues that his due process and equal protection rights have been violated by imposition of the requirement that he file a grievance with the State Bar of Texas against his former attorney in order to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We construe the Respondent's motion for summary affirmance as his brief.
This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Kamara's arguments because he did not present these claims to the BIA. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
The Respondent's motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.