Ngole v. Gonzales , 136 F. App'x 698 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 28, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-20748 Clerk
Summary Calendar
PAULINE NGOLE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-2039
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pauline Ngole, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition.
Ngole argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) violated
her due process rights by determining that she did not meet the
requirements set forth Matter of Lozada, 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA
1988) and, thus, not addressing her late appeal from the
immigration judge’s order.
The district court denied and dismissed Ngole’s petition,
holding that it lacked authority to review the BIA’s decision;
that if it had even if had such authority, the scope of judicial
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-20748
-2-
review was limited to circumstances not applicable in Ngole’s
case; and if the scope of such review were not limited, that
Ngole was not entitled to habeas relief because “Ngole’s
constitutional due process rights have not been infringed upon
due to ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Ngole argues and cites evidence to support her argument that
she met the Lozada requirements and that the BIA erred in its
determination that she did not. However, she has not briefed the
question of the district court’s authority to review the claims
raised in her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and has inadequately
briefed any due-process argument. Indeed, the brief contains no
real “argument” on this issue; rather, it is composed wholly of
conclusional allegations. Nor does it cite any relevant case
law. See FED. R. APP. P. 28 (a)(9); United States v. Tomblin, 46
F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995) (brief must contain a legal
argument that indicates the basis for each contention). Thus,
any appealable issues have been abandoned and need not be
addressed by this court. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225
(5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
is AFFIRMED.