Palani v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
July 13, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60688
Summary Calendar
CHELLADURAI PALANI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 607 698
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chelladurai Palani, a native and citizen of India, petitions
this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) decision ordering him removed to India. The IJ refused to
terminate or administratively close Palani’s removal proceedings
because Palani had not obtained the concurrence of the Department
of Homeland Security. The IJ determined that Palani was
removable after Palani admitted that he had overstayed his
nonimmigrant visa. Palani appealed to the BIA, and the BIA,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60688
-2-
mistakenly believing that no final order of removal had been
entered, treated Palani’s appeal as interlocutory and did not
consider the issues raised therein. The IJ returned the record
to the BIA for further review, notifying the BIA that an order of
removal had been previously entered. Thereafter, the BIA
dismissed Palani’s appeal on its merits.
Palani argues that the IJ erred when the IJ returned the
case to the BIA for further review without first calling Palani
into court to determine the possibility of any application for
relief from removal. Palani did not raise this claim before the
BIA in his appeal, which was briefed before the alleged error
occurred, or in a motion to reopen his deportation proceedings.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider Palani’s petition
for review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d
132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). Palani’s petition for review is
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

-- 2 of 2 --