Rashed v. Acosta, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 14, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20859
Summary Calendar
SAEED RASHED,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
HIPOLITO M. ACOSTA, Acting District Director Immigration
and Naturalization INS; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-02-CV-749
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Saeed Rashed appeals the district court’s summary-judgment
dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Rashed’s petition sought a stay of deportation
and judicial review of: his 1993 deportation order; the 1992
revocation of his legalization as a temporary resident; and the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) District Director’s
decision denying Rashed’s request for a stay of deportation.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-20859
-2-
The district court did not err in determining that it lacked
jurisdiction to review the 1993 deportation order because Rashed
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to
the order. See Cardoso v. Reno, 216 F.3d 512, 518 (5th Cir. 1999);
Townsend v. United States Dep’t of Justice INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182
(5th Cir. 1986). Because there was no jurisdiction to review the
deportation order due to failure to exhaust, the termination of
Rashed’s temporary resident status also was not reviewable by the
district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(4)(A). Pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(g), the district court also lacked jurisdiction to
review the merits of the denial of Rashed’s request for a stay of
deportation. See Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999); Cardoso, 216 F.3d at 516-17.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. As the
federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear Rashed’s appeals, his
motion for remand to the district court to present new evidence is
DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --