Case Name: Viktor Pavlovitch MYTYUK, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-28
Citations: 323 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 08-60393
Parties: Viktor Pavlovitch MYTYUK, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
Viktor Pavlovitch MYTYUK, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60393
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 28, 2009.
Viktor Pavlovitch Mytyuk, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Viktor Pavlovitch Mytyuk appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals's (BIA's) decision denying his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and moves for production of his criminal record. The Immigration Judge found, based on the totality of the record and Mytyuk's demeanor during his testimony, that Mytyuk was not credible and was therefore not entitled to relief, noting specifically the significant inconsistencies between My-tyuk's written application and his oral testimony.
Like his brief before the BIA, Mytyuk's brief before this court fails to address the Immigration Judge's credibility finding beyond mere conelusional representations of his truthfulness. He has therefore waived review of that issue by virtue of his inadequate briefing. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Insofar as Mytyuk has adduced additional evidence outside of the administrative record, it is not considered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 391 n. 15 (5th Cir.2001).
PETITION DENIED; MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.