Case: 17-13381 Date Filed: 09/27/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-13381 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A086-980-156 LEONARD GREEN MALUNGA, a.k.a. Leonard Malunga Green, a.k.a. Leonard Malunga, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (September 27, 2018) Before MARCUS, JORDAN, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-13381 Date Filed: 09/27/2018 Page: 2 of 8 Leonard Green Malunga, a native and citizen of Malawi, entered the United States on March 17, 2000 on a temporary visa that authorized him to stay in the country up to six months. He overstayed this visa and, on July 29, 2015, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear and sought removal. Mr. Malunga conceded the charge of removability, but filed an application for cancellation of removal. He also applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that his father was beaten (and presumably killed) by the government and he had his finger cut off by the same attackers due to his father’s political views, association with a human rights group, and sexual orientation. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s denial of Mr. Malunga’s applications for relief. Now proceeding pro se, Mr. Malunga appeals from that final order. After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we dismiss the petition in part and deny the remainder of the petition. 1 I We are obligated to inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction whenever it may be lacking. See Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004). We review our subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. 1 We read Mr. Malunga’s pro se brief liberally, but “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.” Ruga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 757 F.3d 1193, 1196 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)). The government moved to file its answer brief out of time. By separate order, that motion is GRANTED. 2 Case: 17-13381 Date Filed: 09/27/2018 Page: 3 of 8 Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). The government contends that we lack jurisdiction over the IJ’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and over the dismissal of Mr. Malunga’s asylum petition on timeliness grounds. We agree on both accounts. Our review of the denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b is limited. We are prohibited from reviewing “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under [§] 1229b,” with the exception of “constitutional claims or questions of law.” See Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 661 F.3d 534, 549 (11th Cir. 2011) (alterations adopted, emphasis in original) (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) & 1252(a)(2)(D)) See also Jimenez-Galicia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 690 F.3d 1207, 1209 (11th Cir. 2012) (“We can review no discretionary determinations about cancellation of removal, except ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals