Case: 13-60260 Document: 00512589889 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-60260
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 9, 2014
JINGMEI XU; ZENGZHONG ZHANG,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Petitioners
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A087 492 097
BIA No. A087 492 098
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jingmei Xu and her husband, Zengzhong Zhang, both natives and citizens of
China, petition this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial
of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argue that the IJ abused his
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60260 Document: 00512589889 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2014
No. 13-60260
discretion in denying the continuance requested by their newly retained
counsel without considering the obvious deficiency in the performance of prior
counsel and that this abuse of discretion tainted his credibility finding. This
is the sole issue for appeal, as Xu and Zhang do not challenge any other
findings or conclusions made by the IJ and affirmed by the BIA. Accordingly
Xu and Zhang have abandoned any other claims of error. See Thuri v. Ashcroft,
380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004).
With respect to the argument that the IJ abused his discretion by failing
to consider prior counsel’s deficient performance in denying the motion to
continue the hearing scheduled for March 8, 2011, the BIA was not afforded an
opportunity to address the issue because Xu and Zhang did not include any
reference to the failure to consider counsel’s performance in the brief submitted
to the BIA. See Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, Xu and Zhang failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as
to this issue, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the instant petition. See
Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009).
The petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2