Rolando Gaitan-Gamez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Rolando Gaitan-Gamez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60457

Document: 00511194368

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60457 S u m m a r y Calendar August 4, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

R O L A N D O ANTONIO GAITAN-GAMEZ, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A094 799 089

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* R o la n d o Antonio Gaitan-Gamez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, p e t it io n s this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (B IA ) summarily dismissing his appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) fo r failure to file a brief challenging an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his r e q u e s t for voluntary departure. Although Gaitan-Gamez withdrew his

a p p lica tion s for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention A g a in s t Torture at a hearing before the IJ, he argues that his attorney was
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60457

Document: 00511194368 Page: 2 No. 09-60457

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

in e ffe c t iv e for allowing him to withdraw the applications and that his w it h d r a w a l was not knowing and voluntary. G a it a n -G a m e z did not argue to the BIA that his attorney was ineffective a n d the withdrawal of his applications was involuntary. Therefore the issues a r e unexhausted, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. See Omari v . Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317-19 (5th Cir. 2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 4 5 2 -5 3 (5th Cir. 2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Gaitan-Gamez has abandoned any a r g u m e n t concerning the BIA's dismissal of his appeal for failure to brief by fa ilin g to argue the issue in this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 8 3 3 (5th Cir. 2003). A c c o r d in g ly , the petition for review is DENIED.

2