Case: 16-60321 Document: 00514059994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-60321
FILED
July 5, 2017
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JESSICA YESENIA VILLALOBOS-DIAZ; YESENIA SARAI PORTILLO-
VILLALOBOS,
Petitioners
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 804 011
BIA No. A206 804 151
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Petitioner Jessica Yesenia Villalobos-Diaz and her minor daughter, both
citizens and natives of El Salvador, petition this court for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. We
review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Barrios-
Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60321 Document: 00514059994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2017
No. 16-60321
The petitioners contend that the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying
their motion because they demonstrated that their original counsel was
ineffective in failing to submit documents which would have corroborated their
request for asylum. By their argument, the petitioners simply complain that
the BIA should have addressed their ineffective assistance claim on the merits.
However, they fail to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s dispositive
determinations that they failed to comply with the procedural requirements
for bringing an ineffective assistance claim and that the new evidence
submitted did not demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for any of the
requested relief. By failing to challenge the reasons for the BIA’s decision, the
petitioners have abandoned the sole issue for review. 1 See Soadjede v.
Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review
is DENIED.
1 Inasmuch as the petitioners now also contend that the BIA violated their due process
rights, we lack jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted arguments. See Omari v. Holder,
562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).
2