Inuwa v. Garland

Case: 20-60283 Document: 00516028805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 24, 2021 No. 20-60283 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Oluwapamilerin Hamis Inuwa, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A212 946 850 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Oluwapamilerin Hamis Inuwa, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60283 Document: 00516028805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2021 No. 20-60283 adjustment of status, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petition for review is denied. Inuwa’s motion to appoint counsel is denied, see Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982), and his motion to supplement the record is granted, see Oloson v. I.N.S., No. 94-40434, 1995 WL 153426, at *2 n.4 (5th Cir. Mar. 30, 1995) (unpublished). Where an alien does not establish that he is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 petition, the BIA does not err by determining that an alien is not eligible for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a); see also McMaster v. Holder, 587 F. App’x 826, 828 (5th Cir. 2014). 1 Inuwa has never submitted a filed or approved I-130 petition. This portion of the petition for review is denied. The BIA expressly did not reach the issue of whether Inuwa’s conviction constitutes an aggravated felony. Because this court does not address the opinion of the IJ unless it impacted the BIA’s decision, see Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007), those parts of the IJ’s decision that did not influence the BIA are not before this court and need not be considered, Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). This portion of the petition for review is dismissed. See Castillo-Rodriguez v. INS, 929 F.2d 181, 183 (5th Cir. 1991). Legal issues that are not briefed are waived on appeal. Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Even construing Inuwa’s pro se brief liberally, see Morrow v. FBI, 2 F.3d 642, 643 n.2 (5th Cir. 1993), he does not challenge the adverse credibility determination. Without credible evidence, the BIA had no basis upon which 1 Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not precedential but may be persuasive. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). 2 Case: 20-60283 Document: 00516028805 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2021 No. 20-60283 to grant asylum or withholding of removal. See Chun v. INS, 40 …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals