Park v. Gonzales

06-60222Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitFeb 15, 2007

Full text

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60222
Summary Calendar
SANG DAE PARK,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A37 704 357
---------------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sang Dae Park, a citizen of Korea, petitions this court to review the order by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ)
denying his request for a discretionary waiver of removal under former Immigration and Nationality
Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Park contends that (1) the IJ plainly erred in finding that
he was ineligible for § 212(c) relief because the IJ conflated statutory eligibility with discretion, (2)

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
he was denied due process because the IJ applied the incorrect legal standard, and (3) the IJ abused
his discretion in failing to consider favorable evidence and in denying relief.
Because Park’s third argument attacks the IJ’s weighing of the favorable and adverse factors
for § 212(c) relief and does not present a constitutional or legal question, this court lacks jurisdiction
as to that claim. See Delgado-Reynua, 450 F.3d 596, 600 (5th Cir. 2006). Additionally, this court
is without jurisdiction to review Park’s remaining claims because he failed to present them in his
appeal to the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Wang v. Ashcroft,
260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Park’s petition for review is DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.