Kalalib 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
August 1, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60663
Summary Calendar
FIRAS KALALIB,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A75 894 332
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Firas Kalalib, a native and citizen of Syria, petitions this
court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications
for waivers of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. First
Kalalib asserts that the immigration judge (IJ) erred in requiring
him to establish that his wife would suffer extreme hardship if he
were deported in order to obtain a waiver of inadmissibility under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ did not err in requiring Kalalib to
meet the requirements of § 1182(h)(1)(B). He does not qualify for

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60663
-2-
a waiver under subparagraph (A) under the statute’s plain language
because the IJ determined that he is inadmissible under both §
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(D) and § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). See § 1182(h)(1)(A).
In the alternative, Kalalib asserts that he did establish that
his wife would suffer extreme hardship upon his deportation, such
that he is entitled to waivers of inadmissibility under § 1182(h)
and (i). We are precluded from considering this issue by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars judicial review of the IJ’s
discretionary determinations under § 1182(h) and (i).
Kalalib also asserts two arguments that he failed to raise
before the BIA: that the IJ violated his Due Process rights in
finding that he had committed visa fraud and that the IJ ignored
BIA precedent in denying his application for adjustment of status.
Because Kalalib failed to exhaust these issues, we do not have
jurisdiction to consider them. See § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004).
Finally, Kalalib asserts that the IJ erred in considering his
prior arrests in exercising his discretion. This court lacks
jurisdiction to review the bases for discretionary determinations
under § 1182(h) & (i) and § 1255. See § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --