Agugua 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
March 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60211
Summary Calendar
MICHAEL EZEKWESIRI AGUGUA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A29-300-558)
_________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, AND BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Ezekwesiri Agugua, a native and citizen of Nigeria,
petitions this court for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying
his request for cancellation of removal. Agugua argues that the
BIA erred by denying his request for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Agugua also moves this court for a stay
of removal. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
The BIA’s determination that cancellation of removal was not
warranted under the facts of the case was a discretionary denial
of relief that this court does not have jurisdiction to review.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d
524, 526-28 (5th Cir. 2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831
(5th Cir. 2004). We note that Agugua’s contention that he was
erroneously found to be ineligible for cancellation of removal
based on his conviction of an aggravated felony offense is
unsupported by the record. We dismiss the petition to the extent
that it seeks review from the BIA’s discretionary decision to
deny cancellation of removal.
Agugua argues that the denial of cancellation of removal
violated his due process rights. We have jurisdiction to
consider this legal question. Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436
F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 40 (2006).
The argument is unavailing, however, as Agugua’s “[e]ligibility
for discretionary relief from a removal order is not a liberty or
property interest warranting due process protection.”
See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To the extent
that Agugua’s claim challenges the BIA’s denial of cancellation
of removal on due process grounds, the petition is denied.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART;
MOTION FOR STAY OF REMOVAL DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --