Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 18-60194      Document: 00514786478         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/08/2019
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 18-60194                              FILED
    Summary Calendar                      January 8, 2019
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    DANERSY MIREYA CARDENAS-EUCEDA,
    Petitioner
    v.
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A098 589 425
    Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM: *
    Danersy Mireya Cardenas-Euceda, a native and citizen of Honduras,
    petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
    denying her motion to reopen her 2004 in absentia removal proceedings. The
    BIA found that the motion was untimely and that Cardenas-Euceda had failed
    to present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions in Honduras to
    * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 18-60194     Document: 00514786478      Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/08/2019
    No. 18-60194
    exempt her from the 90-day limitation period for moving to reopen removal
    proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii).
    As the respondent correctly notes, Cardenas-Euceda fails to brief the
    district court’s timeless finding or its related finding that she did not present
    sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. By abandoning those issues,
    she has waived her challenge to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. See
    Falek v. Gonzales, 
    475 F.3d 285
    , 291 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007); Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
    
    324 F.3d 830
    , 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Consequently, Cardenas-
    Euceda cannot show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Barrios-Cantarero
    v. Holder, 
    772 F.3d 1019
    , 1021 (5th Cir. 2014).
    The petition for review is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-60194

Filed Date: 1/9/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/9/2019