Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60029 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M O D EST O RO D O LFO H AR VE Y G U TI ER RE Z P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H

. H OLD ER, J R. , U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 36 047 452

B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * M o de s t o Rod o l f

o H arve y G ut i e r r e z ( H arve y G ut i e r r e z ) , a n at ive a nd
c i t i z e n o f

M e x i c o , p e t i t i o n s f

o r r e v i e w o f t h e Bo a r do f I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ’( BIA) di scr et i on ary den i alof hi s app l i cat i on f

or c an cella tion of

rem oval an d order of
r e m o v a l. W e l ac k j ur i s di c t i o n t o re vi e w t he deni alof c anc e l l at i o n o f

r e m o va lo rt he fin a l o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. S ee8 U
. S. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( B) (i) , ( a) ( 2) ( C)

. To t he e xt e nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60029

2 H arvey G u t i errez ’ s pet i t i on seeks r evi ew of t h ese det erm i n ati on s, t h e petit i on i s di s m i s s e d f

o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n. H o w e ve r, w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i o n t o c o ns i de rc o ns t i t ut i o nalc l ai m s a nd qu est i on s of l aw . § 125 2( a) ( 2) (D )

. F or t h e reasons st ated be low , H a rv ey G ut i e r r e z ’ s pe t i t i o n r ai s i ng s uc h c l ai m s a nd q ue s t i o ns i s de ni e d. H a rv eyG u ti erre z’ s cl a i m tha t h e w a s d en i ed a full a n dfa i r h ea ri n g w i th th e facts f

u l l y d ev elop ed i s be l i ed bythe reco rdan dis w a ive dbyh i s fa i l u re to
r a is e it b e lo w . S ee Zh ang v. G on zales , 4 3 2 F .3d 3 3 9 , 3 4 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H ar veyG ut i er r ez as se r t s t hat“ t he di f fer ent i alt r eat m ento f A f r i c an C aribbea n [] s un der current i m m i grati on p ol i ci es viol ates t h e E qu alP rot ect i on Pr o vi s i o n o f

t he D ue Pr o c e s s Cl aus e ” and t hat t he BI A ac t e d c o nt r ar y t o l aw and in v io la tio n o f d u e p r o c e s s b yfa il i n gt o c o n s id e rh is p e n d in gcit iz e n s h ip ap pl i c at i o n. The s e c o nc l us i o nala r gum e nt s a r e no ta de qua t e l y br i e fe d a nd t hus
a r e w a iv e d
. S ee Ch am bers v. Mu ka sey , 5 2 0 F .3d 4 4 5 , 4 4 8 n .1 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e do no t c o ns t r ue H arve y G ut i e r r e z ’ s as s e r t i o n, m ad e w i t h ou tsuppo r t i ng a r g u m e n t o rcit a t i o n t o t h e re c o r d , th a t t h e B IAs h o u ldh a v e co n s id e r e dh is p e n d in gcit iz e n s h ip a p p lic a tio n a s an a tio n a lity c la im th a t w o u ldre q u ir e th is
co u rt’s a ctio n u n d e r 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 5 2 (b )(5). H a r v e yG u tie r r e z h a s w a iv e da n yc h a l l e n g e to th e B IA ’ s reje c tio n o f h is l at e - f i l e d b r i e f

b y fail i ng t o b r i e f

t he i s s ue a de qua t e l y and b y s t at i ng t hatt he B IA “ a ctedrea son a b l y a n dw i th i n i ts discreti on i n de n yin g [h i s] m oti on to reb u ttalgo ve rn m en t cou n sel cl a i m . ” S ee Ch am bers , 52 0 F. 3d at4 48 n. 1. To t he
ex ten t he arg u es th a t th e B IAfa i l ed to ad d ress a ch a n ge -i n -l a w arg u m en t, H arve y G ut i e r r e z fail s t o poi ntt o any s uc h ar gum e ntt hathe r ai s e d be f o r e t he BIA. A l t hough he c ont e nd s tha t“ [t] heI m m i gr a t i o n Court s ac t ed c ont r ar y t o l aw by ren deri n g a deci si on w h i ch fai l ed to consi der t h e ha rd shi p fact ors c u m u [l a ] tiv e ly ,” H a r v e yG u tie r r e z d o e s n o t id e n tifya n ye v id e n c e o f h a r d s h ip t h at t h e B IAfai l ed to consi der, cum u la t ivel y or ot h erw i se. Th u s, he h as notN o. 08- 60029

3 s ho w n l e ga le r r o r . To t he e xt e nt he ar gue s t hat t he BI A e r r e d i n b al anc i ng t he ad ve r s e andfav o r ab l e fac t o r s , t hati s ac hall e nge t o t he di s c r e t i o nar y de c i s i o n, a n dw e la c k ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w s u c h ach a lle n g e . S ee§ 1 2 5 2 (a )(2)(B ). H arvey G ut i e r r e z a l s o c o nt e nds t hatt he BI A vi o l at e d p r o c e dur aldue process an d ab u sed i t s di scr et i on by fai l i n g t o provi de a reasoned exp l an ati on of i t s d eci s i o n. Thi s a r gum e nti s uns upp o r t e d b y t he r e c o r d. To t he e xt e nthe argu es t h at he w as n otinf orm ed of, or given a h eari n g regardi n g, rel i ef f or w h i ch he w as e l i gibl e , t hi s a r gum e nti s a l s o b e l i e d b y t he r e c o r d. H arve y G ut i e r r e z ’ s m o t i o n t o i nc o r po r at e by r e fe r e nc e t he a r gum e nt s he
m a d e in h is b r ie f to th e B IAis d e n ie d
. Se eYoh eyv . Col l i ns , 985 F
. 2d 222, 224- 25 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). P ET I T I ON DI S M I S S ED I N P AR T A ND D ENI ED I N P AR T ; MOTI ON DE NI ED
.