Case: 19-60378 Document: 00515562918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 14, 2020 No. 19-60378 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Grace Kaboh, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 923 800 Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Grace Kaboh, a native and citizen of Cameroon, filed a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA denied Kaboh’s implied motion to remand the case to the immigration judge (IJ) for the consideration of new evidence and dismissed her appeal of the IJ’s * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60378 Document: 00515562918 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 No. 19-60378 denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Kaboh fails specifically to challenge the BIA’s denial of her claims for WOR and protection under the CAT. Thus, she has abandoned any argument that the BIA’s denial of these claims was erroneous. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, Kaboh fails specifically to challenge the BIA’s denial of her implied motion to remand the case to the IJ for the consideration of newly submitted evidence in the form of medical records, photographs, letters, and news articles. But even assuming Kaboh sufficiently raises this issue by asserting that her attorney failed to submit her medical records in the IJ proceedings and by simply relying on the remaining new evidence, her challenge nevertheless lacks merit. A motion seeking remand for the IJ to consider new evidence may be granted only if the “evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the BIA proceedings, Kaboh essentially acknowledged that her newly submitted medical records were available and could have been presented at the IJ’s hearing. More generally, Kaboh asserted that her attempts to obtain additional corroborative evidence were limited by the Cameroonian government’s intentional disruption of internet service in her region of the country. However, Kaboh neglected to offer a specific explanation as to why any particular item of the remaining new evidence that predated the IJ’s hearing could not have been presented at the hearing. With respect to the news articles and other documents that postdate the IJ’s hearing, such that they could not have been presented, Kaboh failed 2 Case: 19-60378 Document: 00515562918 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/14/2020 No. 19-60378 to explain how those documents ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals