Joseph Karichu v. Eric Holder, Jr.

516 F. App'x 326
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 6, 2013
Docket12-60392
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 516 F. App'x 326 (Joseph Karichu v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Joseph Karichu v. Eric Holder, Jr., 516 F. App'x 326 (5th Cir. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Kiriba Karichu, a native and citizen of Kenya, has petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as without merit and on the alternative basis that the motion did not meet the statutory requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Karichu has failed to brief, and has thus abandoned, the issue of whether the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen on the ground that it did not meet the statutory requirements for motions to reopen. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Because the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen on the ground that it did not meet the statutory requirements set forth in § 1003.2(c)(1) presents an independent, unchallenged basis for affirming the BIA’s decision, we deny Karichu’s petition for review on that basis without addressing Karichu’s remaining arguments. -See Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624-25 (5th Cir.2000), abrogated on other grounds, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 67, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). 1

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. Karichu did address this issue in his reply brief. We do not ordinarily consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief, though we have discretion to do so. United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir.2010). We find no occasion to exercise our discretion to consider them here because the arguments in his reply brief are unavailing. See Waggoner v. Gonzales, 488 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir.2007)(addressing procedural requirements for a motion to reopen and holding that because Waggoner did not submit an application with her motion to reopen, the "BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Waggoner” the relief she sought).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
516 F. App'x 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-karichu-v-eric-holder-jr-ca5-2013.