Case Name: Emmanuel Ugochukwu ANYANWU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-08
Citations: 100 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 03-60554
Parties: Emmanuel Ugochukwu ANYANWU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 305–305

Head Matter:
Emmanuel Ugochukwu ANYANWU, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60554.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
DECIDED: June 8, 2004.
Emmanuel Ugochukwu Anyanwu, Abilene, TX, pro se.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Anthony P. Nicastro, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
John Ashcroft, Washington, DC, pro se.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Ugochukwu Anyanwu (Anyanwu), a native and citizen and Nigeria, petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming, without opinion, the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision that Anyanwu was not entitled to relief from deportation. Anyanwu concedes that he falsely claimed United States citizenship when attempting to enter the United States at Del Rio, Texas. He states that he cannot find issues for review, but he prevails upon this court to grant him relief from the order of deportation. We construe the Respondent's motion for summary affirmance as its brief.
Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, arguments must be briefed to be preserved. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Because Anyanwu has failed to identify or brief any cognizable issue for this court's review, he has waived any argument of error in the IJ's or BIA's decisions. See id. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
The respondent's motion for summary affirmance is DENIED.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED; MOTION 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.