Court Opinion

ID: 9369906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 01:00:34.962668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:17.494614
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20374         Document: 00516641012             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                      ____________                                      Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                       No. 22-20374                             February 9, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Eynel Aroldo Guzman,

                                                                   Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   U.S. Immigration Department,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CV-2305
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Enyel Aroldo Guzman, a native and citizen of El Salvador, and
   proceeding pro se, as he did in district court, appeals the dismissal of his action
   for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of
   Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Almost seven years after the Board of
   Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20374      Document: 00516641012           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 22-20374

   his application for relief, Guzman filed in district court an “Application for
   Asylum under Article III of the Convention Against Torture”. The court
   treated the pleading as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
   § 2241.
          Guzman on appeal: raises new due-process challenges that were not
   presented in district court; and reasserts he will be harmed if removed to El
   Salvador because he renounced his membership in a criminal gang there. He
   fails to challenge the court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider
   Guzman’s action because “[t]he 2005 REAL ID Act removed federal district
   courts’ jurisdiction over removal orders and designated appellate courts as
   the appropriate forums instead”. Likewise, he does not challenge the court’s
   conclusion that his assertions were unexhausted before the BIA and IJ.
          “Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also
   require that arguments be briefed to be preserved.” Yohey v. Collins, 985
   F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Because Guzman fails to
   challenge the court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint, including that the
   court lacked jurisdiction, he abandoned those issues on appeal. E.g., id. at
   224–25; see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d
   744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Along that line, and regarding the assertions Guzman raises for the
   first time on appeal, he does not maintain extraordinary circumstances exist
   in his case such that this court should consider them. Our court has refused
   to find extraordinary circumstances where a party’s briefing “is devoid of any
   argument that a miscarriage of justice would result from our failure to
   consider” an issue raised for the first time on appeal. AG Acceptance Corp. v.
   Veigel, 564 F.3d 695, 700 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the burden is on Guzman
   to establish such circumstances, and he fails to even brief this standard, we
   decline to consider his new assertions that, in his immigration proceedings:
   he misunderstood the questions posed to him during his removal hearing due

                                          2
Case: 22-20374      Document: 00516641012           Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 22-20374

   to his limited English proficiency; and proceeding without an attorney
   prevented his establishing his eligibility for immigration relief.
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3