Filed: Sep. 15, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 15, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60977 Summary Calendar MARGARITO ROMAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75-224-229 - Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Margarito Roman petitions this court for review of the Board of Imm
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 15, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-60977 Summary Calendar MARGARITO ROMAN, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A75-224-229 - Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Margarito Roman petitions this court for review of the Board of Immi..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 15, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60977
Summary Calendar
MARGARITO ROMAN,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A75-224-229
--------------------
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Margarito Roman petitions this court for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration
Judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Roman argues that his
removal from the country will cause his children undue hardship.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of his
petition because whether Roman’s children will suffer hardship if
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
he is removed is subject to the discretion of the Attorney
General. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229(b) and 1252(a)(2)(B); Rodriguez v.
Ashcroft,
253 F.3d 797, 799 (5th Cir. 2001); Moosa v. INS,
171
F.3d 994, 1012-13 (5th Cir. 1999).
The petition to review is DISMISSED.
2