Case Name: Dalibor CERAN, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-19
Citations: 251 F. App'x 304
Docket Number: No. 07-60001
Parties: Dalibor CERAN, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
Dalibor CERAN, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60001
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 19, 2007.
Dalibor Ceran, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division Segovia Unit, Edinburg, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dalibor Ceran, a native and citizen of Croatia, has petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his pro se brief, Ceran argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel before the immigration judge with respect to his application for relief under the CAT. Because Ceran has not exhausted this issue, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2001).
Ceran also contends that the immigration judge erred in denying his application for relief under the CAT. Ceran, however, does not base his argument on the evidence before the immigration judge. Ceran argues only that he could have obtained relief if his attorney had presented additional evidence. Ceran's failure to properly brief the denial of CAT relief is the same as if he had not appealed that issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).
Ceran's petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.