Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 2, 2021
No. 19-60834
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jose Oscar Chavez-Dominguez, also known as Jose Oscar
Dominguez,
Petitioner,
versus
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A024 827 977
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Oscar Chavez-Dominguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his
appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 19-60834
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review factual
findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo,
giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration
statutes. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012).
Proceeding pro se, Chavez-Dominguez contends that the immigration
judge’s (IJ) order of removal is not final and that he should not have been
removed prior to the deadline for filing his petition for review. Because the
BIA dismissed his appeal and he was removed after that dismissal, Chavez-
Dominguez has not shown error in this regard. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(47)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.33(a).
Although Chavez-Dominguez indicates that his entry into the United
States was legal, it is not clear if, by doing so, he is challenging the IJ’s finding
that he was removable as charged because he was “[a]n alien present in the
United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrive[d] in the
United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney
General,” as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). This argument is not
sufficiently briefed and was not fairly presented to the BIA for purposes of
exhaustion. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009);
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, the IJ’s
removal order also rested on its finding that Chavez-Dominguez was
removable as charged under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien who was
convicted of a controlled substance offense. Chavez-Dominguez admitted
that conviction before the IJ, and he does not challenge that basis for the
removal order before us, thereby waiving the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
To the extent that Chavez-Dominguez challenges the denial of his
asylum application, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination
that his application was untimely and did not meet any of the relevant
2
Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 19-60834
exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Because Chavez-Dominguez has not
challenged the denial of his applications for withholding of removal or CAT
relief before us, he has waived those issues. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.
Although Chavez-Dominguez asserts vague due process claims
regarding an unrelated criminal charge and the sufficiency of the
administrative record, he does not provide sufficient support for those
claims. See Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428, 438 (5th Cir. 2008); Yohey, 985
F.2d at 224-25.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part.
3