Ndeye Ndicke Seck v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 19-14748 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14748 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A099-280-328 NDEYE NDICKE SECK, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petitions for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (May 21, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Ndeye Seck seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for withholding of removal and dismissing her procedural due process claim. The Case: 19-14748 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 2 of 6 government has moved for summary denial of Seck’s petition for review and to stay the briefing schedule. For the reasons that follow, we grant the government’s motion. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).1 We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). Where instead the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we also review the IJ’s decision, but only to the extent of the agreement. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947-48 (11th Cir. 2010). We review de novo a claim that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The BIA and IJ must give “reasoned consideration” to a petition for relief from removal. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1232 (11th Cir. 2013). The IJ 1 We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 2 Case: 19-14748 Date Filed: 05/21/2020 Page: 3 of 6 must consider all evidence that an applicant has submitted. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). In addition, claims that are not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned, and we will not address their merits. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 517, 530 (11th Cir. 2013). For an argument to be sufficiently briefed on appeal, the argument must include the appellant’s “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Thus, an appellant’s statement that an issue exists, without further argument or discussion, constitutes abandonment of that issue. Rowe v. ...

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