Jessica Villalobos-Diaz, et al v. Jefferson Sessio, No. 16-60321 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60321 Document: 00514059994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60321 Summary Calendar FILED July 5, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JESSICA YESENIA VILLALOBOS-DIAZ; YESENIA SARAI PORTILLOVILLALOBOS, Petitioners v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 804 011 BIA No. A206 804 151 Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Jessica Yesenia Villalobos-Diaz and her minor daughter, both citizens and natives of El Salvador, petition this court for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. BarriosCantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60321 Document: 00514059994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2017 No. 16-60321 The petitioners contend that the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying their motion because they demonstrated that their original counsel was ineffective in failing to submit documents which would have corroborated their request for asylum. By their argument, the petitioners simply complain that the BIA should have addressed their ineffective assistance claim on the merits. However, they fail to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s dispositive determinations that they failed to comply with the procedural requirements for bringing an ineffective assistance claim and that the new evidence submitted did not demonstrate their prima facie eligibility for any of the requested relief. By failing to challenge the reasons for the BIA’s decision, the petitioners have abandoned the sole issue for review. 1 See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. Inasmuch as the petitioners now also contend that the BIA violated their due process rights, we lack jurisdiction to consider these unexhausted arguments. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009). 1 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.
