Case: 21-60404 Document: 00516132187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 15, 2021
No. 21-60404
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Osorio Diaz,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 240 523
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
José Osorio Díaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his
putative motion to remand and dismissing an appeal from an order of the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60404 Document: 00516132187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2021
No. 21-60404
immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez
v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), Osorio Díaz first contends that, because
his Notice to Appear did not provide the date and time of his initial
immigration hearing, it was “defective.” Because Osorio Díaz did not
present this claim to the BIA and could have done so on a motion to reopen
or a motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Omari
v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–20 (5th Cir. 2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d
448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001).
Osorio Díaz also challenges the BIA’s dismissal of his application for
cancellation of removal. But his brief fails to address the reasons that the BIA
articulated for upholding the IJ’s denial of his application, fails to identify
error in the BIA’s analysis, and fails to adequately cite the record or identify
any caselaw in support of his petition. By failing to adequately brief his
challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal, Osorio Díaz has abandoned it.
See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010); Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Osorio Díaz likewise abandoned
by failure to brief any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his putative motion to
remand. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.
Osorio Díaz’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
2