Case Name: Lorena HERRARTE-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Jeff SESSIONS, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-10
Citations: 676 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 16-60213
Parties: Lorena HERRARTE-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Jeff SESSIONS, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
Lorena HERRARTE-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Jeff SESSIONS, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
No. 16-60213
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 10, 2017
Jaesa Woods McLin, Riguer Silva, L.L.C., Kenner, LA, for Petitioner
Christina Petersen Greer, Trial Attorney, Aaron D. Nelson, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorena Herrarte-Hemandez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA agreed with the IJ's findings and conclusions regarding the credibility determination, the IJ's decision is reviewable. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593-94 (5th Cir. 2007). The IJ's adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536-40 (5th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Herrarte-Hernandez's unexhausted argument that the IJ erred in failing to consider battered women's syndrome. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2009). She has failed to brief any argument regarding the denial of CAT relief and thereby waived review of this issue. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.