Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02409/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02409-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis A. Alvarez-Vicente
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 9, 2016*

Decided November 14, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-2409

LUIS A. ALVAREZ-VICENTE,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH,

Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A206-305-038

O R D E R

Luis Alvarez-Vicente, a 36-year-old native and citizen of Mexico, unlawfully 

entered the United States in 1999. In 2013 he married Rosalba Vega, a United States 

citizen, and two years later pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to domestic battery.

Department of Homeland Security officials then initiated removal proceedings, charging 

him with being an alien present in the United States without being admitted. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Alvarez-Vicente admitted the charged allegations, but requested 

cancellation of removal, see id. § 1229b(b), as well as asylum, id. § 1158, withholding of 

 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because 

the appeal is frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-2409 Document: 18 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16-2409 Page 2

removal, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b), and protection under the Convention Against Torture, id.

§ 1208.16(c). He argued that his removal would cause hardship for his wife, who was ill, 

and that he would be in danger from three childhood sexual abusers if he returned to 

Mexico. The immigration judge denied Alvarez-Vicente’s applications and ordered that 

he be removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.

Alvarez-Vicente appeals the Board’s decision, but his filing does not include a 

brief addressing the agency’s opinion. Instead he has excerpted documents from the 

administrative record, including letters he submitted to the Board requesting relief. But 

even pro se litigants must comply with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, which requires appellants to submit a brief that contains a cogent argument 

and reasoning to support it. See Trentadue v. Redmon, 619 F.3d 648, 654 (7th Cir. 2010); 

Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). By not presenting any argument 

that contests the Board’s decision, Alvarez-Vicente has waived any challenges to that 

decision. See Korsunskiy v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2006); Anderson, 241 F.3d 

at 545.

DISMISSED.

Case: 16-2409 Document: 18 Filed: 11/14/2016 Pages: 2