De Jesus v. Gonzales

Fifth Circuit

De Jesus v. Gonzales

145 F. App'x 978

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

Docket04-60679

StatusUnpublished

This text of 145 F. App'x 978 (De Jesus v. Gonzales) 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.

Bluebook

De Jesus v. Gonzales, 145 F. App'x 978 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Jose De Jesus petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality *979 Act. His argument that the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to follow 8 C.F.R. § 286.3 in obtaining his signatures on the 1998 and 1999 voluntary departure agreements will not be addressed because it was unexhausted before the BIA. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

De Jesus argues, without any legal authority, that minors cannot enter into voluntary departure agreements. We deem this issue abandoned as it is inadequately briefed. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994); Villanueva v. CNA Ins. Cos., 868 F.2d 684, 687 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989). Additionally, De Jesus’s argument that his voluntary departures resulted in a denial of due process because he was unfairly deprived of the benefit of applying for cancellation of removal is without merit. “Eligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not ‘a liberty or property interest warranting due process protection.’” See MirelesValdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 215, 219 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, De Jesus’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Jose De Jesus petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality *979 Act. His argument that the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed to follow 8 C.F.R. § 286.3 in obtaining his signatures on the 1998 and 1999 voluntary departure agreements will not be addressed because it was unexhausted before the BIA. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).

De Jesus argues, without any legal authority, that minors cannot enter into voluntary departure agreements. We deem this issue abandoned as it is inadequately briefed. See Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir.1994); Villanueva v. CNA Ins. Cos., 868 F.2d 684, 687 n. 5 (5th Cir.1989). Additionally, De Jesus’s argument that his voluntary departures resulted in a denial of due process because he was unfairly deprived of the benefit of applying for cancellation of removal is without merit. “Eligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not ‘a liberty or property interest warranting due process protection.’” See MirelesValdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 215, 219 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, De Jesus’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F. App'x 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-jesus-v-gonzales-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack