IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60003

Summary Calendar

SOMSAK SAE KU, also known as Somsak Saeku, 

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A039 065 507

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Somsak Sae Ku (Sae Ku) petitions this court for review of the decision of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reconsider its 

dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal. He 

argues that the IJ committed error by ordering his removal and that the BIA 

erred by affirming the IJ’s determination that he failed to show that he was a 

United States citizen based on his naturalization and/or adoption by his 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60003 Document: 00514957783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2019
No. 18-60003

2

stepfather and by determining that there were no violations of his procedural 

due process rights during the underlying immigration proceedings. 

On September 22, 2017, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed 

Sae Ku’s appeal. Sae Ku did not file with this court a petition for review of the 

BIA’s dismissal of his appeal. Rather, he filed a motion with the BIA for 

reconsideration of the dismissal. On December 18, 2017, the BIA denied 

reconsideration. Sae Ku filed a timely petition for review in connection with 

the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Because Sae Ku did not file a 

petition for review of the BIA’s September 22, 2017 decision that affirmed the 

IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over that 

decision. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06 (1995); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 

F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). This court’s jurisdiction therefore extends only 

to the BIA’s December 18, 2017 denial of reconsideration.

Sae Ku fails to analyze the BIA’s reasons for denying his motion to 

reconsider, which the BIA provided in a clearly worded, succinct opinion. 

Rather than address the BIA’s rationale, explain why the BIA’s conclusions 

constitute error, and explain why the order constitutes an abuse of discretion, 

see Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008), Sae Ku’s 

arguments focus on the IJ’s determination that he was not a U.S. citizen and 

various alleged violations of procedural due process. Sae Ku fails to explain 

why reconsideration was warranted by the BIA. Sae Ku’s failure to address 

the rationale set forth in the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration 

constitutes a waiver of the only issue that is before this court—whether the 

BIA abused its discretion by denying Sae Ku’s motion for reconsideration. See 

United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010); FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(8). Regardless of any failure by Sae Ku to brief the relevant issue, the 

BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration, see 

 Case: 18-60003 Document: 00514957783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2019
No. 18-60003

3

Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448, because he merely rehashed the same arguments 

in that motion that were raised and rejected in his appeal to the BIA. See 

Matter of O–S–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (holding that “a motion to 

reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same 

brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error 

in the prior Board decision”); see also Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th 

Cir.2009) (citing O–S–G– approvingly). 

Accordingly, Sae Ku’s petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack 

of jurisdiction and DENIED in part. His motions for appointment of counsel 

and for judicial notice are DENIED. 

 Case: 18-60003 Document: 00514957783 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2019