Mosquera v. Gonzales, No. 06-60085 (5th Cir. 2007)
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 January 8, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60085 Summary Calendar DIMAS NICOLAS MOSQUERA, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A26 305 006 -------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dimas Nicolas Mosquera (Mosquera) appeals the denial of his application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The immigration judge (IJ) determined that Mosquera had not made the requisite showing that his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The IJ also denied Mosquera s request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ s decision. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 06-60085 -2When considering a petition for review, this court typically reviews only the BIA s decision unless the IJ s decision had some impact on the BIA s decision. 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, Mosquera challenges the denial of his application for relief under § 1229b. jurisdiction to consider that claim. This court is without See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Mosquera also asserts that the denial of voluntary departure was erroneous, and he has moved the court for a stay of removal. However, Mosquera has now been removed. voluntary departure and his motion His argument regarding for stay of removal are therefore moot. Mosquera further argues that his due process rights were violated because the IJ demonstrated bias against him and did not weigh the evidence fairly and impartially. The IJ s statements do not indicate bias or partiality, and Mosquera has not shown that his hearing was otherwise unfair. Moreover, Mosquera has not argued on or alleged that any bias the IJ s part had an extrajudicial source, nor does the record indicate pervasive bias and prejudice. See In re Exame, 18 I. & N. Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982). Finally, Mosquera has moved this court to remand this matter to the BIA. He asserts that he plans to file an application for adjustment of status on the basis of an immediate relative petition filed on his behalf by his second wife, a United States citizen. No. 06-60085 -3This court is without jurisdiction to consider Mosquera s motion to remand, which contains administratively unexhausted claims. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001) Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part. Mosquera s motion to remand and to stay removal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
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.
