Akouavi Seddoh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60860 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part] Judge: WED , Judge: JES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 11/08/2010; granting motion for summary affirmance filed by Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General [6528132-2]; denying as unnecessary motion to extend time to file appellee's brief filed by Respondent Mr. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General [6528132-3] [09-60860]

Akouavi Seddoh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60860

Document: 00511234232

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60860 S u m m a r y Calendar September 15, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

A K O U A V I SEDDOH, P e titio n e r, versu s E R I C H. HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General, R esp on d en t.

P e t it io n for Review of an Order of t h e Board of Immigration Appeals N o . A097 797 144

B e fo r e DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:*

A k o u a v i Seddoh ("Sehhoh"), a citizen and native of Togo, petitions for rev ie w of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming an order
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 09-60860

Document: 00511234232 Page: 2 No. 09-60860

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

o f the immigration judge ("IJ") denying her requests for asylum, withholding of r e m o v a l, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (" C A T " ). The government moves for summary disposition or, in the alternative, t o reset the briefing schedule. S e d d o h argues that the BIA erred by not finding that she could be a deriva t iv e applicant to the asylum application of Kossi Seddoh because she presented e v id e n c e that her marriage to him was bona fide. She contends that her divorce fr o m , and remarriage to, him constituted changed circumstances allowing her t o proceed with her request for asylum even though it was filed more than one y e a r after her last entry into the United States. `Seddoh, apparently challenging t h e denial of asylum and withholding of removal, argues that the evidence pres e n te d before the IJ demonstrated that she would more likely than not be persec u te d if she returned to Togo. She additionally states that she was entitled to r e lie f under the CAT, but she does not provide any specific argument in support o f that contention. S e d d o h did not raise before the BIA her argument that she could have b e e n a derivative applicant. She does not argue, and has not shown, that her adm in is t r a t iv e remedies were inadequate. See Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 3 8 3 , 389 (5th Cir. 2001). Because she failed to exhaust her available administrat iv e remedies on this issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider it, and this portion o f the petition for review is dismissed. See Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181 (5 t h Cir. 1986). A lt h o u g h Seddoh argues that her asylum application was not untimely bec a u s e her divorce from, and remarriage to, Kossi Seddoh constituted changed circ u m s t a n c e s , the BIA ruled that there were changed circumstances but that the application was untimely because it was not filed within a reasonable time after t h e circumstances had changed. Because Seddoh does not address that ruling, s h e has waived any challenge to it. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 2

Case: 09-60860

Document: 00511234232 Page: 3 No. 09-60860

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

S e d d o h , in an apparent challenge to the BIA's denial of her requests for a s y lu m and withholding of removal, argues that the evidence showed that it was m o r e likely than not that she would be persecuted in Togo. The BIA, however, d e n ie d Seddoh's request for asylum because her asylum application was unt im e ly , and it denied her request for withholding of removal based on the IJ's det e r m in a t io n that Seddoh's testimony was not credible. Seddoh does not address t h e BIA's affirmance of the IJ's ruling that her testimony was not credible. Because she has not addressed the reasoning supporting the BIA's denial of her r e q u e s ts for asylum and withholding of removal, she has waived any challenge s h e could have made to the denial, and her argument that the evidence showed t h a t she would be persecuted if she returned to Togo is insufficient. See Brinkm a n n , 813 F.2d at 748. Though Seddoh states that the BIA should have found that she was entit le d to relief under the CAT, she does not provide any argument to support that c o n t e n t io n . Therefore, she has abandoned that issue. See FED. R. APP. P. 2 8 (a )(9 ); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). S u m m a r y disposition of this case is appropriate, because there is no subs t a n t ia l question as to the outcome, so the government's motion for summary d i s p o s i t i o n is GRANTED. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & D e v ., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). The petition for review is DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part. The government's motion to reset the briefing s c h e d u le is DENIED as unnecessary.

3