Aguilar-Cortez v. Gonzales , 186 F. App'x 515 ( 2006 )

Menu:

                                                     United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT                      June 22, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60549
Summary Calendar
ABRAHAM AGUILAR-CORTEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A95 104 862)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Abraham Aguilar-Cortez petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the denial of his
request for adjustment of status and final order of removal.       The
BIA ruled Aguilar was ineligible for adjustment of status pursuant
to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) because he had accrued more than
one year of unlawful presence in the United States and pursuant to
§ 1182(a)(2) because of his prior conviction for misprision of
felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
On a petition for review of a BIA decision, factual findings
are reviewed for substantial evidence; questions of law, de novo.
Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,

263 F.3d 442

, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).                       We
review the BIA’s order and will consider the underlying IJ decision
only if it influenced the BIA’s determination.               Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft,

303 F.3d 341

, 348 (5th Cir. 2002).
Aguilar contends his unlawful presence in the United States
did not render him ineligible for adjustment of status under
§ 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).          We need not reach this contention, because
Aguilar   has    not    shown    the    BIA   erred   in    determining    he    was
ineligible for adjustment of status because his conviction for
misprision    of     felony   was   a   conviction    for    a   crime   of   moral
turpitude, making him ineligible for adjustment of status under §
1182(a)(2).      See Smalley v. Ashcroft,

354 F.3d 332

, 339 (5th Cir.
2003).    Because Aguilar’s conviction was for a crime of moral
turpitude,      we     lack     “jurisdiction    over      his   final   order    of
deportation”.        Id.; see Lee v. Gonzales,

410 F.3d 778

, 783 (5th
Cir. 2005).
Aguilar’s assertion that the BIA violated his due process
rights by considering the § 1182(a)(2) issue is unavailing.                      See
Anwar v. INS,

116 F.3d 140