United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 18, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60679
Summary Calendar
JUAN JOSE DE JESUS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A77 401 876
--------------------
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Juges.
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 Act.
His argument that the Immigration and Naturalization Service failed
to follow 8 C.F.R. § 236.3 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).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
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 Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 215,
219 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, De Jesus’s petition for review
is DENIED.
2