Daniel Palacios v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Fifth Circuit

Daniel Palacios v. Jefferson Sessions, III

707 F. App'x 833

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 2018

Docket16-60697 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

This text of 707 F. App'x 833 (Daniel Palacios v. Jefferson Sessions, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Palacios v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 707 F. App'x 833 (5th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Moreno Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the validity of a 2013 removal order in this petition for review. Palacios failed to contest the 2013 order earlier in the proceedings. He did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order or otherwise attempt to rebut the charge that he was removable based on his prior conviction for an aggravated felony, nor did he challenge the 2013 order by filing a petition for review. See 8 C.F.R, § 238.1(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). He also reentered the United States illegally in violation of his deportation order.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge to the underlying removal order. See Martinez v. Johnson, 740 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (5th Cir. 2014). Palacios’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Daniel Moreno Palacios, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenges the validity of a 2013 removal order in this petition for review. Palacios failed to contest the 2013 order earlier in the proceedings. He did not respond to the Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order or otherwise attempt to rebut the charge that he was removable based on his prior conviction for an aggravated felony, nor did he challenge the 2013 order by filing a petition for review. See 8 C.F.R, § 238.1(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). He also reentered the United States illegally in violation of his deportation order.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge to the underlying removal order. See Martinez v. Johnson, 740 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (5th Cir. 2014). Palacios’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

707 F. App'x 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-palacios-v-jefferson-sessions-iii-ca5-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack