Case Name: Ruben Abastillas OGELSBY, 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: 2006-05-16
Citations: 180 F. App'x 526
Docket Number: No. 05-60225
Parties: Ruben Abastillas OGELSBY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 526–527

Head Matter:
Ruben Abastillas OGELSBY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-60225
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 16, 2006.
Tracy L. Davenport, Rayne, LA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Anthony P. Nicastro, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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 JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ruben Abastillas Ogelsby petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA determined that Ogelsby was removable from the United States because he was an alien who had committed an aggravated felony. Ogelsby maintains that the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) was equitably estopped from denying him citizenship because the actions of an INS clerk prevented him from obtaining citizenship.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that an alien is deportable because he has committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Ogelsby does not dispute the BIA's determination that he has committed an aggravated felony, and his equitable estoppel claim attacking the BIA's finding that he is an alien fails. See Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994, 1003 (5th Cir.1999). Consequently, Ogelsby's petition for review is DIS-
MISSED 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.