Case ID: f-appx_598/html/0330-02.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

Bukola BASHORUN, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-60375
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 30, 2015.
    Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bukola Bashorun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing her appeal challenging the immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion she was not entitled to asylum or withholding of deportation, and order of removal, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(a), 1208.13(a). Bashorun maintains she made the necessary showing to be eligible for asylum and withholding of deportation.

Bashorun, however, has abandoned her claims by failing to brief them sufficiently. See, e.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003) (holding arguments not briefed are abandoned). Her counseled brief states claims in a perfunctory and eonclusory manner. Bashorun fails to cite the record or otherwise discuss pertinent facts, does not apply the relevant legal standards to the specific facts of the case, and provides no legal analysis or substantive discussion of the bases for her claims. Furthermore, she does not address the grounds upon which the IJ and the BIA denied her claims, and does not identify any particular claimed error by them. (Moreover, we need not consider new evidence or claims not' offered in the administrative proceedings or extraneous contentions that do not concern the instant case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001).) Accordingly, Bashorun has waived her claims for relief. See, e.g., Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833; Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

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 r. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th cir.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.