Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Augustin Ngambo TEOUDEO; Christine Laure Nguefack Ngambo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60722
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 9, 2007.
    Labi Akere, Dallas, TX, for Petitioners.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, Patrick James Glen, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, Carl Perry, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Augustin Ngambo Teoudeo (Teoudeo) and Christine Laure Nguefack Ngambo (Ngambo), both natives and citizens of Cameroon, challenge the denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (IJ) rejected their application based on a finding that Teoudeo and Ngambo were not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion.

In their petition for review, Teoudeo and Ngambo assert that the IJ’s credibility determination was not supported by the record and that the IJ and BIA failed to consider probative evidence in support of their claims. However, Teoudeo and Ngambo have not specified how the IJ’s credibility determination was not supported by the record or what evidence the IJ and BIA failed to consider. Because Teoudeo and Ngambo have failed to properly brief the issue of the district court’s credibility determination, they have abandoned the only relevant issue for review. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.