Court Opinion

ID: 9364750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 01:00:44.950711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.080443
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60837          Document: 00516617489              Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                          No. 21-60837
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                  January 19, 2023
   Ricardo Enriquez,                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
                                                                                      Petitioner,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                  Respondent.

                           Petition for Review of an Order of the
                               Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 Agency No. A096 517 803

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Ricardo Enriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court
   for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his
   appeal. We DISMISS the petition for review.
         Enriquez was convicted of indecency with a child by contact under
   section 21.11(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code. In light of that conviction, the
   Department of Homeland Security served Enriquez with a Notice to Appear,

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60837      Document: 00516617489            Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/19/2023

                                      No. 21-60837

   charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for being
   convicted of sexual abuse of a minor, which is an “aggravated felony” under
   8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). Afterwards, the Department of Homeland
   Security lodged an additional charge of removability against Enriquez as a
   noncitizen “convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or
   a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” 8 U.S.C. §
   1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
          In response, Enriquez filed an application for cancellation of removal.
   At his removal hearing, Enriquez admitted the factual allegations contained
   in the Notice to Appear and stated that he is not afraid to return to Mexico.
   Consequently, the Immigration Judge determined that Enriquez is not
   eligible for cancellation of removal and ordered that Enriquez be removed to
   Mexico. Enriquez appealed to the BIA and the BIA affirmed the Immigration
   Judge’s decision.
                                           I.
          Here, Enriquez challenges the BIA’s determination by contesting the
   underlying criminal conviction. But a final conviction “provides a valid basis
   for deportation unless it is overturned in a judicial post-conviction
   proceeding.” Zinnanti v. INS, 651 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1981). Enriquez
   has not alleged that his conviction has been overturned, and he may not
   collaterally attack the validity of his conviction through an immigration
   proceeding. See Brown v. INS, 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1988).
          Furthermore, Enriquez forfeits any challenge to the BIA’s
   determination that his conviction constitutes a “crime of . . . child abuse”
   under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) because he fails to brief the issue. See Jaco
   v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Although [the Court]
   liberally construe[s] pro se petitions, pro se litigants must still comply with the

                                           2
Case: 21-60837      Document: 00516617489            Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/19/2023

                                      No. 21-60837

   civil rules of appellate procedure.”); Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448
   n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that issues not briefed are forfeited on appeal).
                                          II.
          Having argued that none of Enriquez’s arguments is meritorious, the
   government nonetheless contends that this case should be remanded to the
   BIA because the BIA failed to address some of the factual and legal issues
   regarding Enriquez’s eligibility for cancellation of removal. To the extent
   that the government raises new errors arising solely out of the BIA’s decision,
   those arguments are unexhausted because they were not raised in a motion
   for reconsideration.    See Osman v. Garland, No. 21-60893, 2022 WL
   17352570 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022); Martinez-Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353,
   360 (5th Cir. 2022). Likewise, to the extent the government asserts that the
   IJ erred, those arguments are unexhausted because they were not raised in an
   appeal to the BIA. See id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the
   claims raised by the government.
                                  *        *         *
          Accordingly, we DISMISS the petition for review.

                                           3