Kamodjou v. Holder, No. 08-60630 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 08-60630 Document: 00511223056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-60630 Summary Calendar September 2, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MACHOUDI BOLADJI KAMODJOU, Petitioner, versus ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals No. A23 557 713 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The immigration judge ( IJ ) denied Machoudi Kamodjou s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 08-60630 Document: 00511223056 Page: 2 No. 08-60630 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) dismissed Kamodjou s appeal of the IJ s decision. Kamodjou petitions for review of the BIA s ruling. The government argues that the petition for review should be dismissed because this court lacks jurisdiction to review Kamodjou s challenge to the order of dismissal. Kamodjou asserts that we have jurisdiction over all of his arguments because they are based in law and because refusal to consider them will result in a miscarriage of justice. This court reviews its jurisdiction de novo. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir. 2000). Kamodjou s prior conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude bars us from exercising jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). In addition, we are barred from exercising jurisdiction because Kamodjou challenges the BIA s discretionary denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). Because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA s order, the petition for review is DISMISSED. 2
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.
