United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40193
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE SALINAS-CASTILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CR-779-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Salinas-Castillo (Salinas) appeals his conviction and
sentence for being illegally present in the United States despite
an outstanding removal order. Salinas contends that the district
court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of his
deportation or to dismiss the indictment. He argues that his
removal proceeding violated the Due Process Clause because he was
denied administrative or judicial review of his request for
relief under the former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Salinas maintains
that under the equities of the case, he would likely have
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40193
-2-
obtained the requested relief if review was available. Salinas
concedes that his contention is foreclosed by this court’s case
law, but he raises the claim to preserve it for further review.
Because the relief requested by Salinas “is available within
the broad discretion of the Attorney General, [it] is not a right
protected by due process.” United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313
F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court did not err by
denying Salinas’s motion to suppress evidence or to dismiss his
indictment. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Salinas also requests that this Court remand the case for
further factual development related to the validity of his
removal order. Salinas notes that prior to his sentencing, this
Court remanded his immigration case to the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) for consideration of his request for discretionary
relief. However, the BIA reaffirmed its order of removal and
Salinas failed to file a petition for review of that decision
within the period allowed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Accordingly,
there is no need for further factual development on this issue.
This motion is DENIED.