Case: 13-60613 Document: 00512740094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 20, 2014
No. 13-60613
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
FERNANDO LOPEZ-BARRAZA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A078 917 697
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Fernando Lopez-Barraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s dismissal of his challenge to a
decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his request for voluntary
departure. He argues that his due process rights were infringed because the
IJ erred when weighing the factors in favor of and against the requested relief.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-60613 Document: 00512740094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2014
No. 13-60613
As a general rule, we lack jurisdiction to consider the propriety of the
discretionary denial of a request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(f), § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Vidal v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 250, 252 (5th Cir.
2007); Eyoum v. INS, 125 F.3d 889, 891 (5th Cir. 1997) (concluding that
§ 1252(a)(2)(B) precluded consideration of challenge to denial of voluntary
departure). Nonetheless, we retain jurisdiction to consider constitutional
claims and legal issues. See § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368,
372-73 (5th Cir. 2014).
Our review of Lopez-Barraza’s brief shows that it “presents no
constitutional question or question of law.” See Sattani, 749 F.3d at 373.
Rather, he simply raises “an abuse of discretion argument cloaked in
constitutional garb.” See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.
2006) (internal brackets, quotation marks, and citation omitted). Accordingly,
the petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
2