Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2006

Ogelsby v. Gonzales

Ogelsby v. Gonzales
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided May 16, 2006 · Jones, Demoss, Prado
180 F. App'x 526

Counsel

Tracy L. Davenport, Rayne, LA, for Petitioner., David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Anthony P. Nicastro, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent., Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Ogelsby v. Gonzales

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Ruben Abastillas Ogelsby petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA determined that Ogelsby was removable from the United States because he was an alien who had committed an aggravated felony. Ogelsby maintains that the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) was equitably estopped from denying him citizenship because the actions of an INS clerk prevented him from obtaining citizenship.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that an alien is deportable because he has committed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Ogelsby does not dispute the BIA’s determination that he has committed an aggravated felony, and his equitable estoppel claim attacking the BIA’s finding that he is an alien fails. See Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994, 1003 (5th Cir. 1999). Consequently, Ogelsby’s petition for review is DIS-

MISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.