Case: 19-60930 Document: 00515792310 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-60930 March 23, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Julio Cesar Rodriguez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A096 807 305
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
In 2001, Julio Cesar Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was
admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor with authorization
to remain in the country for a temporary, identified period of time; he did not
leave the country by the designated date. Thus, in 2018, the Department of
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60930 Document: 00515792310 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/23/2021
No. 19-60930
Homeland Security served Rodriguez with a notice to appear, charging him
with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B).
Rodriguez appeared with counsel in immigration court, admitted the
factual allegations in the notice to appear, and conceded removability. After
filing an application for cancellation of removal, counsel moved to withdraw,
and the immigration judge (IJ) granted the motion. The IJ continued the next
scheduled hearing so that Rodriguez could hire substitute counsel. However,
Rodriguez appeared pro se at the subsequent hearing, and the IJ set the case
for a merits hearing. Rodriguez then repeatedly requested removal and
indicated that he no longer wished to pursue cancellation of removal;
accordingly, the IJ ordered him removed to Mexico. Rodriguez agreed with,
and accepted, the IJ’s removal decision. The IJ’s written order stated that
Rodriguez waived appeal.
Thereafter, Rodriguez filed a notice of appeal with the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA rejected Rodriguez’s sole argument
on appeal that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore his
due process rights were violated, because he was unaware at the time he
waived appeal that his family had hired counsel to represent Rodriguez in the
removal proceedings and dismissed his appeal based on the appeal waiver.
On appeal, Rodriguez argues only that the waiver was not knowing and
voluntary based on the factors articulated in Nose v. Attorney General,
993 F.2d 75 (5th Cir. 1993), and that as a result, his due process rights were
violated. Rodriguez’s failure to present these issues to the BIA and properly
exhaust his administrative remedies deprives this court of jurisdiction to
address them. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2009).
Rodriguez’s petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION.
2