Vargas-Pueblo 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
April 25, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60450
Summary Calendar
MARTIN VARGAS-PUEBLO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91 054 152
--------------------
Before DeMoss, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Martin Vargas-Pueblo, a native and citizen of Mexico, filed
a petition for review in this court challenging the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge's (IJ) denial of relief under former § 212(c) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act.
The REAL ID Act generally precludes judicial review of
discretionary decisions of the Attorney General, including the
grant or denial of a waiver of removability. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); see Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan, 461 F.3d

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60450
-2-
605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). However, none of these provisions
“shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims
or questions of law raised upon a petition for review . . . .”
§ 1252(a)(2)(D).
Vargas argues that the BIA erred when it affirmed the IJ’s
denial of § 212(c) relief. He claims that the IJ’s improper bias
against him violated due process. However, Vargas’s claim is
unavailing. Section 212(c) relief is available only within the
broad discretion of the Attorney General and is not “a right that
is protected by due process.” See United States v. Lopez-Ortiz,
313 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). Therefore, this court lacks
jurisdiction to review Vargas’s challenge to the BIA’s decision
affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for § 212(c) relief.
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 2 --