Filed: Apr. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 25, 2008 No. 07-60435 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk EMMANUEL OLABODE Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 323 217 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Emmanuel Olabode petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 25, 2008 No. 07-60435 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk EMMANUEL OLABODE Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A95 323 217 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Emmanuel Olabode petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration A..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 25, 2008
No. 07-60435
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
EMMANUEL OLABODE
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A95 323 217
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Emmanuel Olabode petitions this court for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s decision denying his application for adjustment of status.
He argues that the immigration judge erroneously applied the REAL ID Act of
2005, Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, in adjudicating his application and,
additionally, that the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination
violated his due process rights. Olabode, however, failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with regard to these claims. We are therefore without
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60435
jurisdiction to review them, and his petition is dismissed. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1);
Roy v. Ashcroft,
389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Judicial review of a final
order of removal is available only where the applicant has exhausted all
administrative remedies of right.”). See Townsend v. INS,
799 F.2d 179, 181-82
(5th Cir. 1986) (conclusory statements do not suffice).
PETITION DISMISSED.
2