Case: 20-60788 Document: 00516166247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 13, 2022 No. 20-60788 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Manuel Arizmendi Hermosillo, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A078 181 263 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Manuel Arizmendi Hermosillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ). The BIA concluded that Arizmendi Hermosillo had failed to brief, and thus * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60788 Document: 00516166247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 No. 20-60788 had waived, a challenge to the IJ’s determination that a prior conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, which rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that, although Arizmendi Hermosillo was eligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), he had not shown that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if he was returned to Mexico. Finally, the BIA rejected Arizmendi Hermosillo’s argument that his hearing was unfair and denied him due process. A petitioner abandons an issue by failing to challenge or brief an agency ruling. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 n.10 (5th Cir. 2007). As the Government argues, Arizmendi Hermosillo abandoned any claims regarding the determinations of his eligibility for asylum, whether his prior offenses were particularly serious crimes, and his eligibility for withholding of removal. Even if he had briefed those issues, because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA, we would lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009). Finally, although Arizmendi Hermosillo exhausted a challenge to the IJ’s conclusion that he failed to show he should receive deferral of removal under the CAT, he has abandoned this issue by failing to address it in his appellate brief. See Zhu, 493 F.3d at 593 n.10. Arizmendi Hermosillo’s brief also argues that his hearing before the IJ was unfair and denied him due process. Aliens in removal proceedings are protected under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018). Due process requires that an alien be given notice of the charges against him, a hearing, and a fair opportunity to be heard. Id. To prevail on a due-process claim, an alien must make an initial showing of substantial prejudice by demonstrating that the alleged error affected the outcome of the proceedings. Id. 2 Case: 20-60788 Document: 00516166247 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/13/2022 No. 20-60788 Although Arizmendi Hermosillo argues that his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals