Case Name: Rolando Antonio GAITAN-GAMEZ, 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: 2010-08-04
Citations: 389 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 09-60457
Parties: Rolando Antonio GAITAN-GAMEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Rolando Antonio GAITAN-GAMEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-60457
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 4, 2010.
Rolando Antonio Gaitan-Gamez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Sarnia Naseem, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rolando Antonio Gaitan-Gamez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily dismissing his appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) for failure to file a brief challenging an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his request for vol untary departure. Although Gaitan-Ga-mez withdrew his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture at a hearing before the IJ, he argues that his attorney was ineffective for allowing him to withdraw the applications and that his withdrawal was not knowing and voluntary.
Gaitan-Gamez did not argue to the BIA that his attorney was ineffective and the withdrawal of his applications was involuntary. Therefore the issues are unexhausted, and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 317-19 (5th Cir.2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Gaitan-Gamez has abandoned any argument concerning the BIA's dismissal of his appeal for failure to brief by failing to argue the issue in this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.