Court Opinion

ID: 9407378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 18:00:44.810831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.411663
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60319        Document: 00516810324             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023

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

                                     ____________                               FILED
                                                                             July 6, 2023
                                      No. 22-60319
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                    ____________

   Miguel Soto Hinojos,

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A034 574 483
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Miguel Soto Hinojos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
   review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
   appeal from the denial of his application for withholding of removal and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60319      Document: 00516810324          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                    No. 22-60319

          We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s
   decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d
   220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial
   evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez-Gomez v.
   Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Soto Hinojos has abandoned all issues raised for review by failing to
   adequately brief them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
   2003). While Soto Hinojos contends that he demonstrated that he was
   entitled to withholding of removal, the brief fails to address the BIA’s finding
   that he waived any challenge to his withholding claim by not presenting it to
   the immigration judge. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,
   813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Similarly, with respect to his CAT claim,
   Soto Hinojos fails to address the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any
   challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that he could safely relocate
   within Mexico to avoid torture. See Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Moreover,
   Soto Hinojos’s scant and conclusory argument regarding his CAT claim fails
   to offer supporting record citations or to explain how the cited legal
   authorities support his argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).
          Accordingly, Soto Hinojos’s petition for review is DENIED.
   Additionally, the Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED, and
   retained counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary.

                                              2