Filed: Feb. 15, 2007
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 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 05-61123 Clerk Summary Calendar PAUL JONATHAN MAGEE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency No. A96 637 514 - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Paul Jonathan Magee petitio
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 05-61123 Clerk Summary Calendar PAUL JONATHAN MAGEE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. - Petition for Review of an Order of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency No. A96 637 514 - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Petitioner Paul Jonathan Magee petition..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-61123 Clerk
Summary Calendar
PAUL JONATHAN MAGEE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Agency No. A96 637 514
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Paul Jonathan Magee petitions for review of the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s order of
deportation. He argues that he is eligible for adjustment of
status and that he was detained and removed in violation of his
due process rights. Magee’s petition for review was not timely
filed, however. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to review the merits of his claims. See Karimian-
Kaklaki v. INS,
997 F.2d 108, 113 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITION DISMISSED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.