United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60592
Summary Calendar
DAMIAN ROMO-BRIONES,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A90 443 295
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On June 20, 2005, pursuant to the REAL ID Act, the district
court transferred a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the
March 1999 order of an immigration judge that Damian Romo-Briones
(Romo) be deported from the United States. Romo argues that the
original order of removal is void in light of our decision in
United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 2001), and
that res judicata prevents the Government from attempting to
deport him.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60592
-2-
The REAL ID Act did not alter the jurisdictional requirement
that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to seeking
judicial review of a removal order. Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar,
436 F.3d 508, 514 (5th Cir. 2006). This court lacks jurisdiction
over Romo’s claims because he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d).
Although Romo contends that we retain jurisdiction despite
his failure to exhaust administrative remedies because he has
shown a gross miscarriage of justice, the standard regarding a
gross miscarriage of justice does not apply to cases wherein the
petitioner seeks direct review of an original removal order. See
generally, Ramirez-Molina, 436 F.3d at 514-15.
Romo’s petition for review is therefore DISMISSED FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION.