Case ID: f-appx_258/html/0704-01.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

Leticia SAUCEDO-CASTILLO, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60207
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2007.
    Leticia Saucedo-Castillo, Stafford, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Luis Enrique Perez, Margaret A O’Donnell, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Leticia Saucedo-Castillo (Saucedo) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her request for a continuance. Saucedo sought a continuance of her removal proceedings to prove that an immigrant visa was immediately available to her on the basis of a March 1979 priority date assigned to an approved 1-130 petition filed on her behalf.

The BIA found that the correct priority date was March 31, 1997, the filing date of the 1-130 petition, and that there had been a typographical error on the approval notice. The administrative record does not compel a conclusion to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Saucedo thus has not shown that the denial of her request for a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2006). By failing to adequately brief her assertions that the denial of her continuance motion violated her rights to due process and equal protection, Saucedo has abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.