Felix v. Mukasey

Fifth Circuit

Felix v. Mukasey

290 F. App'x 764

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 26, 2008

Docket07-60654

StatusUnpublished

This text of 290 F. App'x 764 (Felix v. Mukasey) 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

Felix v. Mukasey, 290 F. App'x 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Ramon Romero Felix petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit Felix’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former INA § 212(c) and ordering Felix removed from the United States. Felix contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 212(c). Specifically, he avers that he is entitled to § 212(c) relief because his sexual contact of a minor offense is comparable to a crime involving moral turpitude. Felix’s arguments in support of his petition for review are foreclosed by our precedents. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2007); Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir.2007). Felix’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Ramon Romero Felix petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit Felix’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former INA § 212(c) and ordering Felix removed from the United States. Felix contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 212(c). Specifically, he avers that he is entitled to § 212(c) relief because his sexual contact of a minor offense is comparable to a crime involving moral turpitude. Felix’s arguments in support of his petition for review are foreclosed by our precedents. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2007); Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir.2007). Felix’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

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)

290 F. App'x 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felix-v-mukasey-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack