Ramirez-Lugo v. Ashcroft

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60971
Summary Calendar
ANGEL RAMIREZ-LUGO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A90 719 840
--------------------
November 6, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Angel Ramirez-Lugo (“Ramirez”) has filed a petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The BIA denied the
motion because it was prohibited from considering a motion to
reopen or reconsider filed by an alien who has been removed from
the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(d).
Ramirez argues that 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(d) is invalid because it
was promulgated to implement the now-repealed 8 U.S.C.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-60971
-2-
§ 1105a(c)(repealed 1996). Ramirez has failed to show that the
repealed statute bore any relationship to the BIA’s authority to
consider motions to reopen immigration proceedings. See INS
v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 322 (1992). We therefore conclude
that the repeal of 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) did not render 8 C.F.R.
§ 3.2(d) invalid.
To the extent that Ramirez seeks to challenge directly the
BIA’s November 2000 order of removal, his petition is untimely.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Ramirez asserts that we have
jurisdiction under Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 493 (5th Cir.
2000), because his removal constituted a gross miscarriage of
justice. His reliance on Lara is misplaced because the instant
matter, unlike Lara, does not involve a 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition.
For the foregoing reasons, Ramirez’s petition for review is
DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --