Anyah v. Heston , 74 F. App'x 300 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 10, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21287
Summary Calendar
OBIMEFUNA O. ANYAH,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL HESTON, Acting District
Director, INS; JAMES ZIGLAR,
Commissioner of INS; JOHN ASHCROFT,
Attorney General for USA,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-1537
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Obimefuna O. Anyah(Anyah) appeals the district court’s denial
of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his removal pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(5)(A), which authorizes the removal, in
absentia, of any alien who fails to attend a removal proceeding
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
after being given notice thereof. He argues that his
constitutional right to due process was violated because he was
detained and ordered removed without proper notice and without the
opportunity to be heard in his removal proceedings.
Contrary to the Government’s assertions, we have jurisdiction
over Anyah’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition because, as an alien who is
removable for having committed an aggravated felony, he is
precluded by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) from seeking direct judicial
review, and his petition raises questions of law only. See
Calcano-Martinez v. INS, 533 U.S. 348, 351-52 (2001); INS V. St.
Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 (2001).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) properly sent
the notices of Anyah’s removal proceeding and hearing to the last
address provided by him. See 8 U.S.C. § 1992(a)(1); United States
v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995). Anyah did
not notify the INS of his change of address as required by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1305. See Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d at 736. Moreover, Anyah has
not demonstrated that he did not receive notice or that his failure
to appear at his removal hearing was due to “exceptional
circumstances.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C). Accordingly, we
conclude that Anyah was not denied due process of law and is not
entitled to habeas relief. See Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d at 736.
AFFIRMED.
2