United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60834

Summary Calendar

Jose Oscar Chavez-Dominguez, also known as Jose Oscar 

Dominguez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A024 827 977

Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Oscar Chavez-Dominguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his 

appeal from the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 19-60834

2

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review factual 

findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal questions de novo, 

giving deference to the BIA’s interpretation of any ambiguous immigration 

statutes. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012).

Proceeding pro se, Chavez-Dominguez contends that the immigration 

judge’s (IJ) order of removal is not final and that he should not have been 

removed prior to the deadline for filing his petition for review. Because the 

BIA dismissed his appeal and he was removed after that dismissal, ChavezDominguez has not shown error in this regard. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(47)(B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.33(a).

Although Chavez-Dominguez indicates that his entry into the United 

States was legal, it is not clear if, by doing so, he is challenging the IJ’s finding 

that he was removable as charged because he was “[a]n alien present in the 

United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrive[d] in the 

United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney 

General,” as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). This argument is not 

sufficiently briefed and was not fairly presented to the BIA for purposes of 

exhaustion. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318, 320-21 (5th Cir. 2009);

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, the IJ’s 

removal order also rested on its finding that Chavez-Dominguez was 

removable as charged under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) as an alien who was 

convicted of a controlled substance offense. Chavez-Dominguez admitted 

that conviction before the IJ, and he does not challenge that basis for the 

removal order before us, thereby waiving the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).

To the extent that Chavez-Dominguez challenges the denial of his 

asylum application, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination 

that his application was untimely and did not meet any of the relevant 

Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2021
No. 19-60834

3

exceptions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3). Because Chavez-Dominguez has not 

challenged the denial of his applications for withholding of removal or CAT 

relief before us, he has waived those issues. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833.

Although Chavez-Dominguez asserts vague due process claims 

regarding an unrelated criminal charge and the sufficiency of the 

administrative record, he does not provide sufficient support for those 

claims. See Bolvito v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 428, 438 (5th Cir. 2008); Yohey, 985 

F.2d at 224-25.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and 

DISMISSED in part.

Case: 19-60834 Document: 00515730377 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/02/2021