Court Opinion

ID: 9925802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 01:00:41.502583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:36.217370
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60296         Document: 00517040283             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/22/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-60296
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                               January 22, 2024
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   David Alister Renaud,                                                               Clerk

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A035 217 053
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          David Alister Renaud, a native and citizen of Grenada, petitions this
   court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal from decisions of the immigration judge (IJ) finding (1)
   Renaud removable as charged and (2) that he failed to make a prima facie
   showing that he was eligible for adjustment of status.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60296        Document: 00517040283        Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/22/2024

                                    No. 23-60296

          Our jurisdiction to review decisions on certain types of discretionary
   relief from removal, including adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a),
   is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct.
   1614, 1621 (2022); Perez v. Garland, 67 F.4th 254, 257 (5th Cir. 2023).
   However, § 1252(a)(2)(D) exempts “constitutional claims” and “questions
   of law” from the jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). § 1252(a)(2)(D); see
   Patel, 142 S. Ct. at 1623. We review an alien’s constitutional claim de novo.
   United States v. Lopez–Vasquez, 227 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir.2000). We also
   review questions of law de novo, deferring, however, to the BIA’s
   interpretation of the statutes and regulations it administers. De La Paz
   Sanchez v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 133, 135 (5th Cir.2006). Factual findings are
   reviewed for substantial evidence. Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829
   (5th Cir. 2019).
          Renaud fails to brief and therefore has abandoned any challenge to the
   BIA’s dispositive findings that counsel conceded removability and withdrew
   Renaud’s request for a waiver of inadmissibility under former 8 U.S.C.
   § 212(c). See Lopez-Perez v. Garland, 35 F.4th 953, 957 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022);
   Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Renaud’s arguments
   that the BIA and IJ impermissibly shifted the burden of establishing that he
   was inadmissible, see Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir. 1997), and
   that his right to due process was violated by the failure of the Government
   and IJ to develop the record regarding his conviction for distributing a
   substance falsely represented as cocaine, in violation of Louisiana Revised
   Statutes Annotated § 40:971.1(A), are meritless. Renaud had the burden of
   establishing that he was admissible “clearly and beyond doubt,” and
   therefore eligible for adjustment of status, which included the burden of
   establishing this counterfeit cocaine conviction was not an offense that
   rendered him inadmissible. See Patel, 596 U.S. at 345; Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d
   98, 105-08 (5th Cir. 2016). Likewise, Renaud had the burden of developing

                                         2
Case: 23-60296     Document: 00517040283           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/22/2024

                                    No. 23-60296

   the record sufficiently to meet that burden. See Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141
   S. Ct. 754, 758, 765-66 (2021). We do not reach the BIA’s alternative
   findings regarding removability, eligibility for waiver under former § 212(c),
   and inadmissibility. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Munoz-
   De Zelaya v. Garland, 80 F.4th 689, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2023). Accordingly, his
   petition for review is DENIED.

                                         3