Saucedo-Castillo v. Mukasey, No. 07-60207 (5th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-60207 Summary Calendar December 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk LETICIA SAUCEDO-CASTILLO Petitioner v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 126 130 Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Leticia Saucedo-Castillo (Saucedo) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge s denial of her request for a continuance. Saucedo sought a continuance of her removal proceedings to prove that an immigrant visa was immediately available to her on the basis of a March 1979 priority date assigned to an approved I-130 petition filed on her behalf. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 07-60207 The BIA found that the correct priority date was March 31, 1997, the filing date of the I-130 petition, and that there had been a typographical error on the approval notice. The administrative record does not compel a conclusion to the contrary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Saucedo thus has not shown that the denial of her request for a continuance constituted an abuse of discretion. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir. 2006). By failing to adequately brief her assertions that the denial of her continuance motion violated her rights to due process and equal protection, Saucedo has abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9). PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.