Case ID: f-appx_598/html/0278-01.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

Iris Mujica TOLEDO, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60410
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 18, 2015.
    Anthony Matulewicz, Esq., Matulewicz & Associates, McAllen, TX, for Petitioner.
    Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Julie Marie Iversen, Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Iris Mujica Toledo, a native and citizen of Paraguay, seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Toledo contends that the BIA erred in deferring to the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination given the testimonial and documentary evidence contained in the record. Toledo also argues that she proved that she was persecuted due to nationality and membership in a particular social group of family.

Before the BIA, Toledo only challenged the immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination. As the BIA noted, Toledo failed to offer any “substantive arguments” challenging the immigration judge’s alternative decision that, even if Toledo were deemed credible, she failed to establish that a central reason she was targeted by her assailants was due to a statutorily protected ground. See Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 349-50 (5th Cir.2006). Thus, as she failed to exhaust the immigration judge’s alternative decision for denying withholding of removal, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir.2009).

Before this court, Toledo does not raise her claim for relief under the CAT. It is thus deemed abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).

DENIED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.