Danersy Cardenas-Euceda v. Matthew Whitaker, No. 18-60194 (5th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 18-60194 Document: 00514786478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60194 Summary Calendar DANERSY MIREYA CARDENAS-EUCEDA, FILED January 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Petitioner v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A098 589 425 Before JOLLY, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Danersy Mireya Cardenas-Euceda, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her 2004 in absentia removal proceedings. The BIA found that the motion was untimely and that Cardenas-Euceda had failed to present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions in Honduras to Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 18-60194 Document: 00514786478 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2019 No. 18-60194 exempt her from the 90-day limitation period for moving to reopen removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii). As the respondent correctly notes, Cardenas-Euceda fails to brief the district court’s timeless finding or its related finding that she did not present sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. By abandoning those issues, she has waived her challenge to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. See Falek v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 285, 291 n.5 (5th Cir. 2007); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Consequently, CardenasEuceda cannot show that the BIA abused its discretion. See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). The petition for review is DENIED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.