Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and 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- 60771
RO BE RT FER N AN D O SEA LE S P et i t i on er v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L R esp on d en t

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s (A 044 646 665)

B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , SO U T H W IC K , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * R o b e r t S e a le s a p p e a ls , pro se , an order of t h e B oard of

I m m i grati on A pp eal s (“ B IA” ) , af

f i rm i n g t h e I m m i grati on Ju dg e’ s ( “ IJ” ) f i n di n g t h at Seal es wa s r e mo v a b l e due t o hi s c r i mi n a lc o n v i c t i o n f o rr e t a l i a t i o n u n d e rT e x a s l a w. F or th e f

ol l ow i n g reasons, Sea l es’ s pet i t i on f or r evi ew i s di sm i ssed i n part f or l a ck of j u ri sd i cti on an dde n i ed i n pa rt. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60771

2 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND R obertSea l es i s a c i t i zen of P a n a m a , w h o w as adm i t t ed i n t o t h e U n i t ed St at e s i n 1 99 6. I n Augus to f 2 00 7, Sea l e s w as c o nvi c t e d b y pl e a o f g ui l t y f o rt he cri m e of ret al i ati on u n der T exas P en alC ode § 36. 06 i n t h e 174 t h D i st ri ctC ou rt in H a r r is C o u n ty , T e x a s . S e a le s w a s s e n te n c e d to a p r is o n te r m o f tw o y e a r s . B eca u se o f h i s con victi on , the D ep a rtm en t of H om elan dS ecu ri ty (“ D H S ”)
se r ved Seal es w i t h a N oti c e t o Appear ( “ N TA ” ) , c hargi ng hi m w i t h re m oval p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2)(A)(iii). U n d e r 8 U .S .C

. § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2)(A)(iii),

“ [ a] n y al i en w h o i s con vi ct ed of a n a ggrav ated fel on y at any ti m e af t er adm i ssi on i s dep o rta b le.” I n t h e N T A , t h e D H S asser t ed that Sea l es’ s c on vi ct i on w as f or a n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n ya s d e fin e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a )(4 3 )(F ). Id

. ( de f i ni ng ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny as “ a c r i m e o f vi o l e nc e . . . f o r w hi c h t he t e r m o f

i m pr i s o nm e nt [is ] a t le a s t o n e y e a r”). A f t erSeal es ’ s r em ovalpr oc ee di ng had begun, t he D H S f i l ed an addit i onal
c h a r g e o f r e m o v a l a g a in s t S e a le s , a s s e r tin gth a t h is o ffe n s e a ls o m e t 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(S )’s d e fin itio n o f a g g r a v a te dfe lo n y . Id

. ( de f i ni ng ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny as “ an of

fen se r e lat i n g t o obst ructi on of j u st i ce . . . f

or w h i ch the t erm of i m pri sonm en ti s atl east on e year” )

. Th e D H S served S eal es w i t h w ri t t en noti ce of t h e a dd i t i on alc h arge. Th e I J then conven ed a h eari n g w h ere he noti f i ed S eal es of t h e n ew cha rge, exp l ai n ed t h e n ew charge to h i m , an d i n f orm ed h i m of h i s r i gh tt o coun sel
. A f t er t h e hea ri n g, t h e I J gran t ed S eal es a c on t i n u an ce. I n D ec em ber2007, t he I J t er m i nat ed t he D H S ’ s rem ovalpr oc ee di ngs a g a in s tS e a le s , b e c a u s e i tfo u n dt h a tt h e g o v e r n m e n td id n o tp r o v e th a tS e a le s ’s
c o nvi c t i o n w as f

o r an ag gr av at e d fe l o ny. The I J f o und t hat t h e gover nm e nt fai l ed to pro ve tha t Se a l es’ s off en se co n s titu teda crim e of viol en ce, a n dthe IJ f ou n d that t h ere w as i n suff i ci en tevi den ce t o deter m i n e w h et h er Seales ’ s of fen se c o n s tit u te do b s tr u c tio n o f ju s tic e .N o. 08- 60771

3 Aft e r t h e I J t e r m i n a t e d S e a l e s ’ s r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e DH S f i l e d a
m o t i o n t o re o pe n Sea l e s ’ s ca s e be c aus e i tob t ai ne d add i t i o nalev i de nc e pr o vi ng t h at Seal es’ s of

fen se c on st i t u t ed o b str u ction of j u st i ce. I n l i gh tof t h i s new e v id e n c e , t h e I J g r a n t e dth e D H S ’s m o t io n to r e o p e n a n dfo u n dth a tS e a le s ’s of fen se c on st i t u t ed obstr u ct i on of j u st i ce. B ased on i t s f i n di n g, t h e I J ordered S e a le s re m o v e dto P a n a m a . S ea l es a p p ea l ed the IJ’ s d ecisi on to t h e B IA

. S ea l es’ s ap p e a l t o th e B IA presented n u m erous groun ds f or r eversal , b u th e on l y argu ed t h ree groun ds of
e r r o r . A f

t e rco ns i de r i ng Se al e s ’ s ar gum e nt s , t he BI A af f i r m e d a nd a do pt e d t he d ecisi on of th e IJ
. S ea l es th en ap p ea l ed the de ci sion of th e B IAto t h i s C ou rt. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Se al es’ s a ppe alr ai s e s anum be ro f i s s ue s , b ut , b e f

o r e w e c o ns i de rt he
m erits of h is a p p e a l , w e m u st f i rst de term i n e w h eth er w e h a ve j u ri sd i cti on to consi der t h e i ssues rai sed i n hi s app eal
. A s to som e g roun ds w e d o not and m u st d i s mi s s t h e a p p e a l
. A l t h o u g h we f i n dt h a twe h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w s o me o f t h e i s s u e s S e a l e s a p p e a l s , we d e n yh i s p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w o n t h o s e g r o unds b e c a u s e th e yd o n o t p r e s e n t t h is co u r t w ith a n yb a s is fo rre v e r s a l. A. Jur i s di c t i o n A l t h ou gh t h i s c ou rtgen eral l y h as j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew f i n alorders of
rem oval u n der 8 U
. S

. C . § 1 2 52(a) ( 1) , w e m ay on l y “ revi ew a f i n alorder of
rem ov a l
. . . i f th e al i en h a s ex h a u sted a l l a d m i n i strative rem ed i es av a i l a b l e to th e al i en a s of ri gh t. ” 8 U
. S

. C

. § 12 5 2 (d)( 1 ). A n a l i en fai l s to e x h a u s t h is ad m i n i st rat ive rem edi es if he fai l s to r a ise a n i ssue bef ore t h e B IA , ei t h er on d ir e c t a p p e a l o r in a m o tio n to re o p e n . O m ariv. Hol d er , 5 6 2 F
. 3 d3 1 4 , 3 1 8 ( 5 th C i r . 2009)

. Thi s exhaust i on r equi r em entappl i es t o a l li ss ues f orw hi c h an
a d m in i s t r a t i v e r e m e d yis a v a ila b le to a n a lie n “a s o f r ig h t.” Id

. “ S i n ce exh au st i on i n t h i s c on t ext i s a st atutor y (ra th er t h an prud en t i al) m an da t e,N o. 08- 60771

Some issues are mentione d, but they are ina dequ ately briefed. Nonetheless, for the 1 sak e of com ple tene ss , w e listeach iss ue mentio ned in s om e way. Although unp ublished decisions are not precedent, we fin d this re asoning per suasive. 2 4 fa ilu r e to e x h a u s t a n is s u e d e p r iv e s th is co u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth a t is s u e .” Id

. a t 3 1 9
. Seal es ’ s appealt o t hi s c our tar guabl y rai se s t he f ol l ow i ng i ss ues : ( 1) 1
w he t h e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s j u d i c a t a o r l a w o f t h e c a s e b a r r e d t h e I J ’ s f i ndi ng th a t his con victi on f

or re tali a ti on w a s a n a gg ra va tedf elon y; ( 2 ) w h eth er th e IJ
w as c or r ec ti n f

i ndi ng t hatSeal es ’ s of fens e c ons t i t ut ed o bs t r uct i on of j ust i c e; ( 3)
w het hert he I J abus ed hi s di sc r et i on i n gr ant i ng t he D H S’ s m ot i on to r eo pen; ( 4)
w h e t h e r t h e D HS p r o p e r l y a d d e da n a d d i t i o n a lc h a r g e o f r e mo v a la g a i n s th i m; ( 5) w he t he rh i s d u e pr o c e s s r i ghtt o afairt r i alw as v i o l at e d; ( 6) w he t he rt he i m m i grati on l aw s vi ol ate equ al protec t i on ; an d ( 7) w h et h er he i s a U n i t ed S t ates ci t i zen a n d, t h eref

ore, not s u bj ectt o t h e na tion’ s i m m i grati on l aw s. B ecau se Se al e s di d no tm ak e am o t i o n t o r e o pe n b utdir e c t l y ap pe al e d hi s r e m o va lt o t he B IA , w e m ustex am i ne Seal es ’ s br i ef t o t he B IAt o de t er m i ne w het herw e have ju r is d ic tio n to re v ie w th e is s u e s ra is e din h is a p p e a l. In h is b r ie f to t h e B IA , S e a le s o n lyp r o p e r lye x h a u s te dt h r e e is s u e s : (1 ) h is
r e s j u d i c a t a c l a i m; ( 2 ) h i s a d d i t i o n a lc h a r g e c l a i m; a n d( 3 ) h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. I n A m osi e v. Hol d er , a n u n p u b lis h e dd e c is io n , w e s ta te dt h a t a n a lie n “‘w ill .
. . be de e m e d t o ha ve e xha us t e d o nl y t ho s e i s s ue s he r ai s e d and argue d i n hi s bri ef b efore th e B IA

. ’” A m osi e v. Hol d er , 324 F. A pp’ x 39 6 , 3 9 9 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (unpub l i s he d) ( quot i ng A bebe v. Mu ka sey , 5 4 8 F .3d 7 8 7 , 7 9 1 (9t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), 2
s upe rs e de d o n o t he rg r o unds , 5 54 F. 3d 12 03 ( 9t h Ci r . 20 09 ) )

. Fi ndi ng t hatt he
a l i e n i n A m o sie fa i l e dt o r a i s e a n da r g u e ap a r t i c u l a ri s s u e b e f o r e t h e B IA, we h e ldth a t w e la c k e dju r is d ic tio n to h e a rth a t is s u e . Id

. W e f i n d n o reason f

or a d i ff ere n t resu l t he re. A l i en s “m u st fa irl y p rese n t t h eir con ten ti on s to the B IA to s a tis fye x h a u s tio n ,” a n d , b e c a u s e S e a l e s ’s b r ie f to th e B IAo n lycle a r lyN o. 08- 60771

While we havenot a ddressed how extensivelya petitioner must a r gu e anissue to 3 satisfy8 U
. S

. C. § 1 252(d), we have a ddressed a related i ssue when defining “waiver” in the context of app eals from di strictcourt s. See JasonD.W. ex rel. Douglas W. v. Hous to n Indep. Sch. Dist. , 1 58F
. 3d2 05 , 21 0 n .4 (5th Cir. 1 998) (“[F]ailure to provide anyle gal or factual an alysi s of ani ssue onapp eal waivesth at is su e. ”) ; Jus tiss Oil Co. v. Ke r r - M c G e eRefining Cor p . , 75 F.3 d 105 7, 106 7 (5th Cir. 199 6) (“This error is mentioned onlyinthe St atement of Issues section
. . . . When an appellant fails to a dvance arguments inthe b odyof its b rief in support of an issue it has raise d onapp eal , we consi der such issues abandoned.”). We find our prior di scu ssion s of waiver—ani ssue quite si milar toth at pres ente d h ere—in structive. 5 a d v a n c e dth r e e o f th e is s u e s h e ra is e s o n a p p e a l, w e fin dt h a tS e a l e s h a s o n ly exh au st ed those i ssues. O m ari , 5 6 2 F .3 da t 3 2 3
. 3 A l t h ou gh Sea l es di d n otproperl y “ rai se and argu e” hi s equa lp ro tect i on cl ai m bef

ore t h e B IA , w e d o ha ve j u ri sdi ct i on t o hea r t h at c l ai m becau se ad m i n i st rat ive revi ew of t h at c l ai m w as un ava i l able du e t o t h e B IA ’ s l ack of j uri sdi c ti on to co nsi dert he c l ai m . 8 U
. S. C

. § 1252( d) ( 1) (s ta tin ga n a lie n o n ly h a s to e x h a u s t “ a v a ila b le ” a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s ); A rce - V ences v. Mu ka sey , 5 1 2 F .3 d1 6 7 , 1 7 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). For t he f

or ego i ng r eas ons , w e f i nd t hatw e o nl y have j uri sdi c t i on t o he ar S eal es’ s r es ju d ica ta , a d d iti o n a l ch a rg e , d u e p ro ce ss , a n deq u a l prot ecti oncl ai m s. W e d i sm i ss h i s rem a i n i n g claim s f or lack of j u ris d ic tio n du e to h i s fa i l u re to
e x h a u s t th o s e c la im s b e fo r e t h e B IA

. Wi t t e r v . I NS , 113 F
. 3d 549 , 554 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) (“W e ha ve n o j u ri sdi ct i on t o con si der i ssues t h at w ere not presented to or c o n s id e r e da t t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e le v e l o n a p p e a l.”) (c itin g8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )). B
. S t an d ardof

R evi ew

“W he n, as her e , t he B IA af f i r m s t he i m m i gr at i o n j udg e a nd r e l i e s o n t he
r e as o ns s e tf

o r t h i n the i m m i gr at i o n j udg e ’ s de c i s i o n, t hi s c o ur tr e vi e w s t he d ecisi on of th e i m m i gr a ti on j u d ge as w ellas th e d ecisi on of th e B IA

. ” A hm e d v. G on zales , 447 F. 3d 433, 437 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (ci t i ng Mo in v. A sh cr oft , 335 F. 3d 4 1 5 , 4 1 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) )

. “ On ap e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w o f

a d e c i s i o n o f

t h e B IA, we rev i ew qu estion s of l a w de n ov o . . . . ” S u ng v. K ei sler , 50 5 F
. 3 d37 2 , 37 5 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ).N o. 08- 60771

6 C

. R es Ju d ica ta Seal esc on ten d s th a t t h e IJ ’ s i n i ti a lterm i n a ti on of h i s r em ovalpr oc ee di ngs h ad res j u di cat a ef

fect s t h at barred t h e I J f rom l aterf

i n di n g t h at hi s c on vi ct i on w a s f or a n “ag g r a v a tedfelon y.” T h e d octrine of res jud i ca ta “ap p l [i es] to
a dj u d i ca toryrem ov a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” A n d ran d e v. G on zales , 4 59 F. 3d 538, 545 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 06 )

. U nde r t he do c t r i ne o f r e s j udi c at a, “ a ‘va l i d a nd f i nalj udg m e nt precl u des a secondsui tbetw een the sam e parti es on t h e sam e cl ai m or an y pa rt th ere of. ’” Id

. ( quot i ng Medina v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 993 F
. 2d 499 , 503 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) )

. “ T h e re s ju d ica tae f fe c to f a p r i o rj u d g me n ti s aq u e s t i o n o f l a w t h a twe
r e v i e w de no vo . ” D a v is v
. D a lla s A re aR a p idTra n sit , 383 F
. 3d 309 , 313 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (cita tion s o m itted ). R e s ju d ic a ta d o e s n o t a p p lyh e r e b e c a u s e th e r e w a s n o “s e c o n ds u it.” B ef or e m aki ng hi s ul t i m at e de t er m i nat i on t hatSeal es w as c on vic t ed f oran agg ravated fel on y, t h e I J gran t ed the D H S’ s m ot i on t o reopen, w h i ch resurrect ed
an d conti n u ed the D H S ’ s i n i t i al proceedi n gs aga i n stSea l es. Am ot i on t o reopen i s a p roce d u ra lde vice th a t a l l ow s a p a rty t o su p p l em en t t h e origin a lreco rdw i th ad di t i on al e v iden ce t o est abli sh a p osi t i on t h at itcoul d n otprevi ou sl y sup port b e c a u s e t h e e v id e n c e w a s u n a v a ila b le
. S ee Zh ao v. G on zales , 404 F. 3d 295, 304- 05 (5t h C i r. 200 5) ( show i n g t h at a m ot i on to reopen a l l ow s a party t o i n t rodu ce n ew evi den ce i n t o t h e rec ord to s u b st an t i ate a posi t i on t h at itcoul d n ot p rev i ou sly esta b l i sh ). H ere , the D H S m ov ed to reop en the origi n a lreco rdto suppl em enti tw i t h pr e v i o us lyu nav a il ab l e e vi denc e s upport i ng i t s as se r t i on t hat S e a le s ’ s o ffe n s e co n s tit u te da n a g g r a v a te dfe lo n y . B ec ause t he I J’ s gr antof t he D H S’ s m ot i on m er ely r eo pened t he o r i gi nal pro c ee di ngs agai nstSeal es , t he IJ ’ s f i ndi ng t hatSeal es w as c onvi c t ed o f an ag gr av at e d f

e l o ny w as i n t he c o nt e xt o f t he o r i gi nal pr o c e e di ng and no ta“ s e c o nd
s u it .” A c c o r d in g ly , t h e d o c t r i n e o f r e s ju d ic a t a w a s n o ta p p li c a b le to th e I J ’sN o. 08- 60771

7 fin d in g . S ee Andr ande , 45 9 F
. 3 d a t 5 4 5 (st a ti n g t h a t t h e d octrine of res jud i ca ta
o n lyp r o h ib its re c o n s id e r a tio n o f is s u e s in as e c o n dp r o c e e d in g). D
. Propri ety of

A d d i t i on al Ch arges Seal es al so c h a l l en ges w het hert he D H S pro per l y f i l ed an addit i onal
c h a r g e o f

r e mo v a la g a i n s th i m. S p e c i f i c a l l y , S e a l e s a s s e r t s t h a tt h e D HS im p r o p e r lya m e n d e dth e ch a r g e o f r e m o v a l to in c lu d e a n a l l e g a tio n th a t h is of fens e con sti t ut ed o bs t r uct i on o f j ust i c e. The r equi r em ent s f orbr i ngi ng an addi t i onalc harge of r em ovalar e f

ou n d in 8 C. F. R
. § 1240. 10( e)

. W e have ju r i s d i c t io n to c o n s id e rw h e t h e rth e D H S m e t8 C .F .R . § 1 2 4 0 .1 0 (e )’s
r e quir e m e nt s , but , i n or de rt o ob t ai n any r e l i e f fo rav i o l at i o n o f

t he r e gul at i o n, S e a le s m u s t s h o w th a th e w a s p r eju d ic e db yth e v io la tio n . G rah am v. Cast on , 56 8 F. 2d 1 092 , 1 097 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 8) (“ [J] udi c i alr e vi e w i s a va i l ab l e w he r e t he ad m i n i st rat ive agen cy fai l s t o f ol l ow p rocedures outl i n ed i n regul ati on s adop t ed b yth a t a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c y .”); Pa c if i c Mo la s s e s Co

. v . FTC , 356 F. 2d 386, 390 ( 5t h Ci r . 196 6) ( s t at i ng t hati f “ an ag e nc y i n i t s pr o c e e di ngs v i o l at e s i t s r ul e s a nd p reju d ice re su lts, an y a ctio n ta k e n a s a re su lt of th e p ro ce e d in g s c a n n o t sta n d ”);
seeK oh l iv. G on zales , 47 3 F
. 3 d10 6 1 , 10 6 6 ( 9 th C i r. 20 0 7 ) (“W h en pr ese n tedw i th al l egati on s t h at an ag en cy ha s vi ol ated i t s ow n regul ati on , w e ha ve recogni zed t hats uch a c l ai m i s s ubj ec tto j udi c i alrev i ew , bu th ave hel d thati n or dert o b e g r a n t e dr e li e f ‘t h e c la im a n tm u s ts h o w th a th e w a s p r eju d ic e db yt h e a g e n c y ’s
m i st ake. ’” ) ( quot i ng Pa t e lv . I NS , 7 9 0 F .2 d7 8 6 , 7 8 8 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 )). The r e c o r d sh ow s tha tt he D H S a nd t he I J di d no tm e e ta l lt he
r e quir e m e nt s s e to uti n 8 C. F. R. § 124 0. 10 ( e )

. A c c o r di ng t o t he r e gul at i o n, t he IJ w as requ i red t o i n f orm S eal es of

hi s r i gh tt o a reasonab l e conti n u an ce af t er i nf or m i ng hi m of

t he D H S’ s addi t i onalc harge of r em oval
. Th e I J fai l ed t o g ive S e a l e s n o t i c e o f th is rig h t. A lth o u g h th e IJ fa ile dto g iv e S e a le s n o tic e o f h is
r ig h t t o aco n tin u a n c e , th e I J g r a n te dS e a le s a c o n tin u a n c e a fte rin fo r m in gh im of t h e D H S ’ s add i t i on alcharge. Seales , t h eref ore, coul d n otha ve beenN o. 08- 60771

8 prej u di ced by t h e IJ’ s fai l u re t o noti f y h i m of hi s r i gh tt o a conti n u an ce because he w as ac t ual l y gr ant ed o ne. As s uch, w e w i l ln otrev er se h i s or derof r em oval
o n th is b a s is
. S ee K

o h li , 4 7 3 F .3 da t 1 0 6 6
. E
. Con st i t u t i on al C laim s Se al e s a l s o a s s e r t s t hathi s due pr o c e s s r i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d a nd t hatt he
n a ti on ’ s i m m i gr a ti on s l a w s violate th e eq u a lpr otection gu a ra n tees o f th e F i ft h Am e ndm e nt
. Al t ho ughSe al e s ’ s b r i e f t o t hi s co ur tm e nt i o ns t he s e i s s ue s i n t he S tatem en t of

Issu es se cti on , h e fail s to ad va n c e a n y a rg u m en t w i th resp ect to th em i n th e b o d yo f h i s br i ef. S ea l es’ s fa i l u re to a d va n ce a n y a rg u m en t w i th
res pe c tt o t he s e i s s ue s m e ans t hathe ha s a ba ndo ne d t he m a s ab as i s for
r e v e r s a l. Jus t i s sO i lCo. v . Ker r - Mc G e eRef i ni ng Cor

p. , 7 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 7 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (“T h is e r r o ris m e n tio n e d o n ly in th e S ta te m e n t o f Is s u e s s e c tio n . . . . W h e n a n a p p e lla n t fa ils to a d v a n c e a r g u m e n ts in th e b o d yo f its b r ie f in sup port of

an i ssue it h as rai sed on app eal , w e consi der such i ssues a b a n d o n e d .”) ; Yohey v. Col l i ns , 9 85 F. 2d2 22 , 2 24

- 25 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 3) ( s t at i ng t hat , e ve n wi t h pr o s e b r i e fs , t he c o ur tw i l lo nl y c o ns i de r“i s s ue s pr e s e nt e d a nd
a r g u e din t h e b r ie f” ). A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e c li n e to a d d r e s s th e m e r it s o f S e a le s ’s d u e p r o c e s s a n de q u a l p r o te c tio n cla im s . I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gr e a s o n s , S e a le s ’ s p e tit io n fo rre v ie w is D IS M IS S E D in p a r t fo rla c k o f ju r is d ic tio n a n dD E N IE D in p a r t.