Emile M. Saint Patrick Higgins v. INS, 275 F.3d 332, 336 4th Cir. 2001 . Moreover, we have held that we lack…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1971
EMILE M. SAINT PATRICK HIGGINS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A28-629-666)
Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: April 17, 2006
Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emile M. Saint Patrick Higgins, Petitioner Pro Se. Michele Yvette
Francis Sarko, Carol Federighi, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In December 2004, Emile M. Saint Patrick Higgins filed an
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. After the May 11, 2005 effective date of the
REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, the
district court transferred the case to this court for treatment as
a petition for review in accordance with § 106(c) of the Act.
The federal immigration statutes clearly state that “[a]
court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien
has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as
of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2000). When Congress has
statutorily mandated exhaustion, that requirement must be enforced.
Kurfees v. INS, 275 F.3d 332, 336 (4th Cir. 2001). Moreover, we
have held that we lack jurisdiction to consider an argument not
made before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Asika v. Ashcroft,
362 F.3d 264, 267 n.3 (4th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 861
(2005).
Our review of the record reveals that Higgins failed to
appeal the immigration judge’s removal order to the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, we dismiss his petition for
review on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --