Efrain Tax Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-16241 MAY 15, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
Agency No. A071-534-087
EFRAIN TAX LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(May 15, 2009)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Efrain Tax Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the BIA’s judgment affirming the IJ’s denial of his application for asylum and
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§
1158 and 1231, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.16(c).
Tax illegally entered the United States in the late 1980s. After applying for
asylum in 1991, Tax returned to Guatemala at least twice, in 1991 and 1996.
Accordingly, after a hearing in August 2007, the IJ denied Tax’s application for
asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(a) (“An applicant who
leaves the United States without first obtaining advance parole . . . shall be
presumed to have abandoned his or her application [for asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT relief] under this section.”). Tax appealed the IJ’s judgment to
the BIA. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and noted specifically its
“agreement with the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that respondent abandoned
his asylum application when he departed the United States without first obtaining
advance parole.” Tax now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision.
It is clear that the IJ and BIA denied Tax’s application because he failed to
overcome the presumption that traveling abroad without obtaining advance parole
abandons a petition for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. §§
1208.8; 1208.1(a). Yet, in his brief to this Court, Tax fails to address that issue or
even to mention it. Instead, his brief focuses exclusively on Tax’s allegations of
2
persecution in Guatemala.
An appellant’s brief must set forth his “contentions and the reasons for them,
with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant
relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Because Tax has failed to make any
argument that his travel abroad did not abandon his asylum application, his brief is
insufficient to raise that claim and the issue is abandoned. See, e.g., Sepulveda v.
U.S. Attorney Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant
fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned.”).
In sum, Tax has made no argument that the BIA and IJ erred in deeming his
application abandoned. Therefore we dismiss Tax’s petition for review.
PETITION DISMISSED.
3