Case ID: f-appx_614/html/0217-01.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

Guadalupe Lorenzo RAMOS, also known as Lorenzo Ramos, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60714
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 25, 2015.
    Felipe D.J. Millan, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.
    Lisa Joan Morinelli, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Guadalupe Lorenzo Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his 2014 motion to reopen his 2005 removal proceedings. Lorenzo contends he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period that applies to motions to reopen due to his counsel’s ineffectiveness. In that regard, he asserts counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise him of the law regarding his application for adjustment of status.

Lorenzo does not challenge the BIA’s refusal to consider his equitable-tolling contention because he failed to raise it before the IJ. See, e.g., Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 195 & n. 14 (5th Cir.2004) (The BIA need not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal). Nor does he challenge the BIA’s alternative ruling that, even if it did consider that contention, he failed to exercise due diligence. Accordingly, Lorenzo has abandoned his challenge to these issues. See, e.g., Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987) (stating claims not pressed on appeal are deemed abandoned).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.