Delgadillo-De Avila v. Garland, No. 21-60452 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-60452 Document: 00516546669 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-60452 Summary Calendar FILED November 16, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jesus Alberto Delgadillo-De Avila, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209 270 551 Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Jesus Alberto Delgadillo-De Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a final removal order by an Immigration Judge (IJ). We review factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and legal * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60452 Document: 00516546669 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2022 No. 21-60452 questions de novo. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2012). Proceeding pro se, Delgadillo-De Avila challenges the determination that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) as an alien who was convicted of a controlled substance offense. We need not reach this issue, however, because the removal order also rested on the finding that Delgadillo-De Avila was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) for overstaying his visa. See Capital Concepts Props. 85-1 v. Mut. First, Inc., 35 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 1994). Delgadillo-De Avila conceded removability for the visa overstay, and he does not challenge that basis for removability now, thereby waiving the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Delgadillo-De Avila’s remaining arguments lack merit. Substantial evidence supports the determination that he did not satisfy his burden to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518. The record likewise does not support Delgadillo-De Avila’s argument that he was prevented or prohibited from presenting his case before the IJ. Finally, to the extent that Delgadillo-De Avila asserts that his removal would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen children or that he qualifies for voluntary departure, he failed to raise either argument before the IJ or the BIA, and we lack jurisdiction to consider them for the first time on appeal. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part, see OrellanaMonson, 685 F.3d at 517-18, and DISMISSED in part, see Omari, 562 F.3d at 319. 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.
