Osorio Diaz v. Garland, No. 21-60404 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-60404 Document: 00516132187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 21-60404 Summary Calendar December 15, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Osorio Diaz, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 240 523 Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* José Osorio Díaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his putative motion to remand and dismissing an appeal from an order of the * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60404 Document: 00516132187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2021 No. 21-60404 immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), Osorio Díaz first contends that, because his Notice to Appear did not provide the date and time of his initial immigration hearing, it was “defective.” Because Osorio Díaz did not present this claim to the BIA and could have done so on a motion to reopen or a motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to review it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–20 (5th Cir. 2009); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). Osorio Díaz also challenges the BIA’s dismissal of his application for cancellation of removal. But his brief fails to address the reasons that the BIA articulated for upholding the IJ’s denial of his application, fails to identify error in the BIA’s analysis, and fails to adequately cite the record or identify any caselaw in support of his petition. By failing to adequately brief his challenge to the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal, Osorio Díaz has abandoned it. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Osorio Díaz likewise abandoned by failure to brief any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his putative motion to remand. See Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833. Osorio Díaz’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
