Case Name: Jose ROMERO-FLORES, also known as Jose Flores, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-21
Citations: 314 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 08-60209
Parties: Jose ROMERO-FLORES, also known as Jose Flores, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 631–631

Head Matter:
Jose ROMERO-FLORES, also known as Jose Flores, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60209
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 21, 2008.
Jose Romero-Flores, El Paso, TX, pro se.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Guadalupe R. Gonzales, Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chief Counsel’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Respondent.
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Romero-Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal as untimely filed. We require that arguments be briefed in order to be preserved; issues not adequately briefed are deemed abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); see also Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003) (issues not raised in alien's petition for review of decision by BIA deemed abandoned). When an appellant, like Romero-Flores, fails to identify any error in the analysis of the judgment from which he appeals, it "is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment." Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Romero-Flores has not argued or briefed the BIA's dismissal of his appeal as untimely filed, the only issue arguably before this court. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.