Case ID: f-appx_206/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth Walter OCHIAGHA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent.
    No. 05-2792.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 3, 2006.
    Filed: Dec. 4, 2006.
    Kwao Amegashie, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.
    Robyn A. Millenacker, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bruce Norum, Bureau of Immigration & Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security, Bloomington, MN, Richard M. Evans, Thomas W. Hussey, Paul Fiorino, Karen Drummond, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Lori Scialabba, U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review, Falls Church, VA, for Respondent.
    Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Walker Ochiagha, a citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Ochiagha failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United-States-citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (cancellation-of-removal eligibility requirements); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding granting of cancellation of removal); De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144-46 (2d Cir.2006) (appeals court is precluded from reviewing discretionary determination as to whether alien meets exceptional-and-extremely-unusual hardship threshold).

We do have jurisdiction to consider Ochiagha’s due process claim, see Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 350-51 (8th Cir.2006), but we find that claim unavailing as Ochiagha has pointed to nothing in the record suggesting that she was denied a full and fair opportunity to present her case, or that the IJ or the BIA otherwise deprived her of fundamental fairness, see Xiao Ji Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 144, 155 (2d Cir.2006); Lopez v. Heinauer, 332 F.3d 507, 512-13 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we deny the petition. We previously granted Ochiagha’s motion for a stay of her removal and voluntary-departure period; the remaining period in which she may voluntarily depart the United States shall begin to run when our mandate in this case is issued, see Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889, 899-900 (8th Cir. 2005). 
      
      . In her petition for review, Ochiagha states that she is also appealing from the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief, but she has waived review of those claims by not presenting any argument on them in her brief. See Alyas v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 756, 760 (8th Cir.2005) ("Because [petitioner] does not argue these issues in his brief, we do not consider them as part of the petition for review.”); Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (petitioner waived claims by not presenting meaningful argument on it in his appellate brief).