Ismael Omar v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 12-60098 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-60098 Document: 00512092451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-60098 Summary Calendar December 21, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ISMAEL MAHDI OMAR, also known as Ismael Omar, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A088 739 922 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ismael Mahdi Omar, a native and citizen of Djibouti, Africa, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also petitions for review of the BIA s denial of his motion for reconsideration. Omar makes only conclusional arguments that his removal was barred by the principle of res judicata and that he was prejudiced during his removal * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-60098 Document: 00512092451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2012 No. 12-60098 proceedings because documentary evidence he submitted in support of his claims was either not submitted to the IJ or not considered by the IJ. Omar does not address the BIA s reasons for rejecting his res judicata argument or its finding that he had a full and fair opportunity to present his claims and that the immigration proceedings were not unfair. In addition, he fails to address the BIA s findings with respect to his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT. Omar s petitions for review do not provide even the slightest identification of any error in the BIA s legal analyses or the application of the analyses to his claims. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Issues not raised and conclusional and inadequately briefed arguments are waived. Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008); Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833; Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Omar s petitions for review are 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.
