Case Name: Jose Israel GUEVARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 231 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 06-60188
Parties: Jose Israel GUEVARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Jose Israel GUEVARRA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-60188
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 19, 2007.
Victor Samuel Elfenbein, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Don George Scroggin, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner Jose Israel Guevarra, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that, affirming without opinion, affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ had determined that Guevarra was statutorily eligible for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l), but exercised discretion and denied Guevarra relief.
Guevarra argues that the IJ lacked statutory authority to exercise discretion and committed "fundamental error" by failing to determine whether Guevarra had previously been granted asylum. But, Guevarra did not present these claims to the BIA, which has adequate mechanisms to address the errors alleged. As such, Guevarra's claims are unexhausted, so we lack jurisdiction to review them. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-453 (5th Cir.2001); Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 389-90 (5th Cir.2001).
Guevarra also challenges the IJ's discretionary denial of relief. We have has no jurisdiction "to review . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . 1229(b)." § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Notwithstanding Guevarra's attempt to circumvent this jurisdictional bar pursuant to § 1252(a)(2)(D) by characterizing his claims as questions of law, we lack jurisdiction to hear his claims. See Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538, 542 (5th Cir.2006); Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.2003).
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.