Opinion ID: 3160402
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Briefing Deficiencies

Text: At the outset, we note that our review is hampered by serious deficiencies in Ms. Ortiz-Rodriguez’s appellate briefing. For example, she fails to identify the relevant standard of review and instead asserts that “[t]he BIA erred or abused its discretion in finding [she] was not eligible for asylum or [restriction on] removal.” Pet’r Br. at 5. But the Federal Rules expressly require that she provide “for each issue, a concise statement of the applicable standard of review.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(B). Our review is further complicated by the fact that Ms. Ortiz-Rodriguez has filed in this court a near verbatim copy of the brief she filed in the BIA. This is not inconsequential because “[w]e consult the IJ’s opinion only to the extent that the BIA relied upon or incorporated it.” Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982, 989 n.8 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]here the BIA decision contains a discernible substantive discussion that stands on its own[,] . . . our review extends no further.” Sidabutar v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). By merely recycling arguments aimed at the IJ’s decision, Ms. Ortiz-Rodriguez fails to confront the BIA’s specific rationale for denying relief. Cf. Semsroth v. City of Wichita, 555 F.3d 1182, 1186 n.5 (10th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that plaintiffs’ appellate brief, which was “a 2 The BIA granted voluntary departure and remanded to the IJ to make the necessary advisals. This limited remand has no effect on the finality of the removal order. See Batubara v. Holder, 733 F.3d 1040, 1042-43 (10th Cir. 2013). 4 verbatim copy of their summary judgment response” filed in the district court, “fail[ed] to address in a direct way the decision under review”). But the greatest deficiency in Ms. Ortiz-Rodriguez’s brief is its failure to show any error in the BIA’s decision.