USCA11 Case: 20-12726 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12726
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A205-570-303
ARMANDO DIAZ-CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(April 21, 2021)
Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Facing removal from the United States, Armando Diaz-Chavez, a native and
citizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. See
USCA11 Case: 20-12726 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 2 of 4
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). He contended that his removal would result in exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to his mother, who is a United States citizen. An
immigration judge (“IJ”) held a hearing on Diaz-Chavez’s application and denied it,
finding that he had not established the requisite hardship to be eligible for
cancellation of removal. The IJ ordered him removed to Mexico.
Diaz-Chavez filed a notice of appeal from the IJ’s decision to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). But in the designated space on the notice-of-appeal
form, he failed to “[s]tate in detail the reason(s) for this appeal,” which the form
warned was necessary to avoid summary dismissal. Instead, he wrote that he would
“submit an additional brief explaining the detailed reason for the appeal.” He also
checked the box for “yes” when asked whether he intended to file a separate written
brief. This question was followed by a warning that, if he answered “yes,” the BIA
may “summarily dismiss” the appeal if he did not file a brief or statement within the
time limits set in a briefing schedule. The BIA then issued a briefing schedule, but
Diaz-Chavez failed to file a brief or other statement on time or to seek an extension.
So consistent with the warnings on the notice-of-appeal form, the BIA summarily
dismissed the appeal for failure to meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reasons for
appeal and to file a timely brief.
Diaz-Chavez now petitions this Court for review, arguing that the IJ erred in
denying his application for cancellation of removal because he established the
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12726 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 3 of 4
requisite hardship to a qualifying relative. But we are unable to consider his
arguments challenging the merits of the IJ’s decision because Diaz-Chavez did not
exhaust those arguments by presenting them to the BIA.1 See Jeune v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 801 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[W]hen a petitioner has neglected to
assert an error before the BIA that he later attempts to raise before us, the petitioner
has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.”); Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006) (“We lack jurisdiction to consider a
claim raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his
administrative remedies with respect thereto.”).
Rather, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, which did not adopt the
IJ’s decision or findings or otherwise address the merits of Diaz-Chavez’s
application for cancellation of removal. See Jeune, 810 F.3d at 799 (“When the BIA
issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the extent that the BIA
expressly adopts the immigration judge’s decision.”). Ordinarily, we review a BIA’s
summary dismissal for abuse of discretion. Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d
1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006).
1
Even if these arguments had been exhausted, we would lack jurisdiction to review the
IJ’s hardship determination. See Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1222–23 (11th Cir.
2006) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to review the “purely discretionary decision that a
petitioner did not meet § 1229b(b)(1)(D)’s ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’
standard”).
3
USCA11 Case: 20-12726 Date Filed: 04/21/2021 Page: 4 of 4
Here, however, Diaz-Chavez does not address the BIA’s reasons for
summarily dismissing his appeal or state why he believes the BIA was wrong to
dismiss it. And “[w]hen an appellant fails to offer argument on an issue, that issue
is abandoned.” Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir.
2005) (noting that passing references to an issue are insufficient to raise a claim for
appeal). Accordingly, Diaz-Chavez has abandoned any argument that the BIA
abused its discretion by summarily dismissing his appeal for failure to state the
reasons for the appeal or to file a timely brief after indicating that he would.
Because we lack jurisdiction to consider the only argument Diaz-Chavez has
raised for our review, we must dismiss his petition.
PETITION DISMISSED.
4