Angela Mulu v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 572 F. App'x 273 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-60593 Document: 00512664542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-60593 FILED
Summary Calendar June 16, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ANGELA MARTIN MULU, Also Known as Angela Mulu-Martin,
Petitioner,
versus
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 079 561 144
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Kenyan citizen Angela Mulu petitions for review of an order of the Board
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60593 Document: 00512664542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2014
No. 13-60593
of Immigration Appeals denying her application for withholding of removal,
withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), defer-
ral of removal, and adjustment of status. She also moves for leave to file a
corrected reply brief.
The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider the peti-
tion for review because Mulu was found removable for having been convicted
of an aggravated felony. Mulu’s conviction of mail fraud, for which she was
sentenced to forty-one months of imprisonment and $981,437.88 in restitution,
was an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). Although we lack
jurisdiction to review a final order against an illegal alien who is removable
because of having been convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C), we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional questions and
questions of law, § 1252(a)(2)(D). Mulu, however, has failed to brief any such
constitutional questions or questions of law, see Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty.
Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987), and we will not
address the issues she raises for the first time in her reply brief, see United
States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Mulu has failed
to brief any issues as to the order of removal, we lack jurisdiction to review it.
In addition to her claims as to the order denying relief, Mulu challenges
her detention during the period between the expiration of her term of impris-
onment and the commencement of her detention in the custody of immigration
authorities. Her challenge was mooted by her transfer to immigration custody
and by the issuance of the final order of removal.
The petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. The
motion for leave to file a corrected reply brief is DENIED.
2