Atkholwala v. Ashcroft , 75 F. App'x 301 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 18, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60070
Summary Calendar
VINOD CHANDRA ATKHOLWALA; KUSUM VINOD ATKHOLWALA;
JIMY VINOD ATKHOLWALA; HARDIK VINOD ATKHOLWALA,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Nos. A75-902-983, A77-269-467,
A77-269-468, A77-269-469
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Atkholwalas (“Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of
India who seek our review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of their
request for voluntary departure. They assert that they are
eligible for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c.
We note, as Ashcroft contends, that Petitioners did not
challenge —— either on appeal or in their motion to reconsider ——
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the IJ’s specific basis for denying voluntary departure. They did,
however, alternatively request voluntary departure, both at the
conclusion of their appellate brief and in their motion. Even if
Petitioners’ general requests for voluntary departure were
otherwise sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, see
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2001), it would avail
them nothing. We lack jurisdiction over their petition for review
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f).
Section 1229c(f) provides that “[n]o court shall have
jurisdiction over an appeal from [the] denial of a request for an
order of voluntary departure under subsection (b) [which permits an
IJ to grant voluntary departure at the conclusion of removal
proceedings] . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f). Thus, denials of
requests for voluntary departure are not subject to judicial review
by any court. See Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1255
(9th Cir. 2003); Sofinet v. I.N.S., 196 F.3d 742, 748 (7th Cir.
1999); see also Eyoum v. I.N.S., 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir.
1997)(holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) precludes this court’s
jurisdiction over denials of voluntary departure).
To the extent that Petitioners challenge the summary
affirmance procedure employed by the BIA, their argument is without
merit. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir.
2003). For these reasons, their petition for review is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
2
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\03\03-60070.0.wpd
4/30/04 11:13 am
3