United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 2, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60567
Summary Calendar
MARIA JAQUELINA VARGAS PEREZ,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA No. A75 478 436)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Maria Jaquelina Vargas Perez, a citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the immigration judge
(“IJ”) to deny her application for cancellation of removal under
the Immigration and Nationality Act and voluntary departure. In
her petition, Vargas Perez argues that: (1) the BIA violated her
due process rights by issuing a summary affirmance of the IJ’s
denial; (2) the IJ violated her due process rights by failing to
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
rule on her asylum application; and (3) her various counsel during
her proceedings before the IJ rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to raise the asylum issue.
Respondent has filed a motion seeking dismissal of Vargas
Perez’s instant petition for lack of jurisdiction on the ground
that Vargas Perez failed to exhaust all of her available
administrative remedies. Our examination of the record confirms
that Vargas Perez failed to raise these claims before the BIA on
appeal or in a motion to reopen the proceedings. Her failure to
exhaust her administrative remedies deprives us of jurisdiction to
consider the instant petition. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448,
452 (5th Cir. 2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)(1999). Although Vargas
Perez argues that the exhaustion requirement should be waived under
the futility exception, she fails to allege facts warranting
application of that exception. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d
383, 389 (5th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, we grant the respondent’s motions to waive the
requirement to file a brief and to dismiss the instant petition for
lack of jurisdiction, and we dismiss Vargas Perez’s petition and
deny all outstanding motions.
Motion to waive requirement to file brief GRANTED; motion to
dismiss GRANTED; petition DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; all
outstanding motions DENIED.
2