Opinion ID: 71944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: This court reviews its own jurisdiction de novo. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). We also review legal issues de novo. Obemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598 (5th Cir. 1993). A. Expedited Administrative Removal of Aggravated Felons Under INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may determine deportability and issue a Final Administrative Removal Order in the case of an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence and who has been convicted of committing an aggravated felony. Judicial review of Final Administrative Removal Orders is conducted 3 Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/04/2010 pursuant to INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252.2 INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(3); see Flores-Ledezma v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, INA § 238(b) applies to aliens who are not lawful permanent residents and allows DHS to determine the removability of such aliens under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and issue a removal order without referring the case to an IJ (unless the alien requests referral to an IJ). INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b); 8 C.F.R. § 208.31. An alien who is subject to a Final Administrative Removal Order issued under INA § 238(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) is ineligible for any relief from removal that is discretionary with the Attorney General. INA § 238(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(5). However, the alien is not barred from non-discretionary relief, such as withholding of removal pursuant to INA § 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), under which the Attorney General may not remove an alien from the United States if the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. If the alien requests withholding of removal, as Umude-Louis did in the instant case, DHS must refer the case to an Asylum Officer, who conducts a Reasonable Fear Determination. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.31(b), 238.1(f)(3). If the Asylum Officer determines that the alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the Asylum Officer must refer the case to an IJ. Id. § 208.31(e). However, if the Asylum Officer makes a negative Reasonable Fear Determination, the alien may request referral to an IJ for review of the negative Reasonable Fear Determination. Id. §§ 208.31(g), 1208.31(g). 2 INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 applies to aliens whose removal proceedings were initiated on or after April 1, 1997. 4 Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/04/2010 The regulations provide that, if the IJ “concurs with the asylum officer’s determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, then the case shall be returned to the Service for removal of the alien.” Id. § 1208.31(g)(1). Further, the regulation expressly provides: “No appeal shall lie from the immigration judge’s decision.” 3 Id. Accordingly, in such instances, there is no appeal available to the BIA, and the IJ’s Final Order is the final agency action, because it is the end of the administrative review of DHS’s Final Administrative Removal Order. Id. The alien may then seek judicial review of the IJ’s final order and the underlying Final Administrative Removal Order by timely filing a petition for review in a Circuit Court.4 B. Lack of Jurisdiction to Review the IJ’s Final Order A petition for review must be filed not later than thirty days after the date of the final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Salazar-Regino v. Trominski, 415 F.3d 436, 446 n.17 (5th Cir. 2005); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 135 (5th Cir. 2004). A timely petition for review of a final order of removal is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003) (“This deadline is jurisdictional.”). 3 If the IJ, in reviewing the negative Reasonable Fear Determination, “finds that the alien has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the alien may submit Form I–589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(2). If denied relief, the alien may then appeal to the BIA. Id. § 1208.31(g)(2)(ii). In such circumstances, the BIA has jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision on the merits of the alien’s withholding claim. Id. The alien may then seek judicial review of the BIA’s decision on the merits of the alien’s withholding claim, because the BIA had jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision, and the BIA’s decision was the final agency action. Id.; see INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). 4 If an alien does not request referral to an IJ, he may seek judicial review of the DHS Final Administrative Removal Order. See INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b)(3). 5 Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/04/2010 In this case, the IJ’s Final Order of March 17, 2009, was the final agency decision regarding the Asylum Officer’s negative Reasonable Fear Determination and DHS’s underlying Final Administrative Removal Order, because the regulations provide that “[n]o [administrative] appeal shall lie from the immigration judge’s decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1). Therefore, if Umude-Louis desired to seek judicial review of the Final Administrative Removal Order, his petition for review was due thirty days after the IJ’s March 17, 2009 Final Order, on Wednesday, April 16, 2009. INA § 242 (b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). However, Umude-Louis did not file the instant petition for review until April 22, 2009—six days after the statutory deadline. Umude-Louis provides no legal basis for this court to assert jurisdiction over his petition insofar as it challenges the IJ’s March 17, 2009 Final Order or the underlying DHS Final Administrative Removal Order of August 19, 2008. Accordingly, because Umude-Louis filed his petition for review outside the thirty-day jurisdictional deadline permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1), the court lacks jurisdiction insofar as Umude-Louis challenges the IJ’s Final Order of March 17, 2009. C. The BIA Properly Dismissed the Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction Under the controlling regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1), the BIA’s April 14, 2009 decision correctly and properly dismissed Umude-Louis’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and, accordingly, declined to address any of the merits of his claim for withholding of removal. The record demonstrates—and Umude-Louis does not contest—that the BIA followed the applicable regulation in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As discussed above, the regulations provide that if an “immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer’s determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture . . . [n]o appeal shall lie from the 6 Case: 09-60283 Document: 00511041978 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/04/2010 immigration judge’s decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g)(1). In the instant case, the IJ’s Final Order of March 17, 2009, affirmed the negative Reasonable Fear Determination and returned the case to the DHS “for removal of the alien.” Further, that Final Order clearly stated on its face that “[t]here [was] no appeal available.” Thus, the IJ’s Final Order properly and correctly applied the controlling regulation, which provides: If the immigration judge concurs with the asylum officer’s determination that the alien does not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, the case shall be returned to the Service for removal of the alien. No appeal shall lie from the immigration