Full text
Azizeh v. INS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-60118 Summary Calendar
YOUSEF MICHAEL AZIZEH,
Petitioner, versus
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A72 454 034 -------------------- November 4, 2002
Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:*
Yousef Michael Azizeh petitions for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Because Azizeh’s deportation proceedings commenced prior the general effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996) (“IIRIRA”), and concluded more than thirty days after its passage on September 30, 1996,
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-60118 -2-
this case is governed by the “transitional rules” in IIRIRA § 309. See Lerma de Garcia v. INS, 141 F.3d 215, 216 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Azizeh has committed a criminal offense which renders him inadmissible under § 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, this court does not have jurisdiction under IIRIRA § 309(c)(4)(G). See id.; see also Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 293 & n.11 (5th Cir. 2000) (construing similar provision in IIRIRA permanent rules).
Azizeh contends that his right to due process was violated because his counsel rendered ineffective assistance resulting in entry of the deportation order in absentia. Although the court has jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims in habeas, it does not have jurisdiction to do so on direct review. See Lerma de Garcia, 141 F.3d at 217; see also Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 305-06 (5th Cir. 1999) (habeas jurisdiction retained). Because the court does not have jurisdiction, the petition for review must be dismissed.