Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0235-01.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

Daniel JEANTY, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-60824
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 22, 2014.
    Daniel Jeanty, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    John Beadle Holt, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Proceeding pro se and informa pauper-is, Daniel Jeanty, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Jeanty’s removal results from his prior state convictions, which were determined to constitute aggravated felonies and crimes involving moral turpitude.

We lack jurisdiction to review an order of removal if it is based on such convictions, except for any constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) & (D) (judicial review of orders of removal). We construe liberally a pro se appellant’s briefs, but Jeanty must present and brief issues to preserve them, or, in this instance, to give the court jurisdiction. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Although he purports to present constitutional claims of denial of both due process and equal protection, they are insufficiently briefed, conelusory, and merely an impermissible attempt to cloak his request for discretionary review in “constitutional garb”. See, e.g., Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.2006); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Pineda, 988 F.2d 22, 23 (5th Cir.1993).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir: R. 47.5.4.