Alvarado-Narvaez v. Gonzales, No. 05-61021 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-61021 Summary Calendar LUIS ALVARADO-NARVAEZ, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A11 394 003 -------------------Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Luis Alvarado-Narvaez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Alvarado-Narvaez argues that the BIA erred by holding, contrary to the conclusion of the immigration judge (IJ), that his conviction under TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(1) was an aggravated felony. This court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitions for review filed by aliens who are ordered removed based on the commission of an aggravated felony. See U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Nevertheless, this court does retain jurisdiction to review the issue whether Alvarado* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 05-61021 -2Narvaez s conviction constitutes an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. Omari v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 303, 306 (5th Cir. 2005). Alvarado-Narvaez has not shown that the BIA erred by finding that his conviction for indecent contact with a minor, under TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(1), constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). In United States v. Zavala- Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000), this court found that the lesser offense of indecent exposure with a minor, under TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(2), constituted sexual abuse of a minor. at 604. We went on to state, Id. [h]ad [the petitioner] s prior offenses been § 21.11(a)(1) offenses involving physical contact, we would clearly treat them as aggravated felonies. n. 1. Id. at 604 Consequently, Alvarado-Narvaez s petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction to the extent that he seeks review of the BIA s determination that he should be removed due to his commission of an aggravated felony. Alvarado-Narvaez also argues that the BIA acted ultra vires by ordering him removed in the first instance. jurisdiction to consider this issue. F.3d 505, 512-14 (5th Cir. 2006). We have See James v. Gonzales, 464 Alvarado-Narvaez is correct insofar as he argues that the BIA should not have issued a removal order but should have remanded his case to the IJ for further consideration. See id. Accordingly, to the extent that he challenges the BIA s authority to issue an order of removal No. 05-61021 -3against him, his petition for review is GRANTED, and the case is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because Alvarado-Narvaez has prevailed on this argument, there is no need to consider his remaining challenges to the order of removal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
