Ferdinand Nwokedi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60595 Dismissed ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: EMG , Judge: CES Mandate pull date is 11/15/2010; denying motion for stay of deportation filed by Petitioner Mr. Ferdinand Nidavis Nwokedi [6556715-2] [09-60595]

Ferdinand Nwokedi v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60595

Document: 00511242939

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60595 S u m m a r y Calendar September 23, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

F E R D I N A N D NIDAVIS NWOKEDI, 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. A078-130-347

B e fo r e JOLLY, GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* F e r d in a n d Nidavis Nwokedi, a native and citizen of Nigeria, has filed a p e t it io n for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision d is m is s in g his appeal of the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his request for a c o n t in u a n c e and cancellation of removal and grant of voluntary departure. Nwokedi asserts that the IJ erred by denying his motion to continue. Nwokedi, h o w e v e r , does not brief any argument regarding the BIA's determination that h e failed to show good cause for a continuance. He also does not address the
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-60595

Document: 00511242939 Page: 2 No. 09-60595

Date Filed: 09/23/2010

B I A 's determination that he failed to show that the denial of his motion to c o n t in u e violated any of his statutory or regulatory rights or that his hearing w a s unfair. Nwokedi's conclusional statement on appeal about the denial of his m o t io n to continue is insufficient to preserve the issue for review. Brinkmann v . Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Nwokedi, who is represented by counsel, is not entitled to a liberal construction o f his arguments. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (pro se briefs m u s t be liberally construed). Because Nwokedi's counsel failed to sufficiently a r g u e whether the motion to continue was improperly denied, the issue is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)

(a r g u m e n ts not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned). N w o k e d i's appeal also conclusionally states that he qualifies and is e n tit le d to cancellation of removal. The IJ found that Nwokedi was not entitled t o cancellation of removal because he could not prove the ten year continuous p r e s e n c e requirement or the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship r e q u ir e m e n t . Nwokedi fails to identify and brief any arguments challenging t h e s e reasons for the denial of relief. Thus, these issues are deemed abandoned. Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Furthermore, even if N w o k e d i's challenge to the denial of cancellation of removal was not abandoned, u n d e r 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), this court does not have jurisdiction to review a n y judgment regarding the granting or denying of discretionary relief in the fo r m of cancellation of removal. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th C ir . 2004). Nwokedi's appeal is DISMISSED. D E N I E D as MOOT. His motion to stay his removal is

2