Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker
This text of Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker (Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danersy-cardenas-euceda-v-matthew-whitaker-ca5-2019.