Jose Navarro-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 573 F. App'x 341 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-60714 Document: 00512666648 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 13-60714 June 17, 2014
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOSE RICARDO NAVARRO-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A076 819 268
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jose Navarro-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal
of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision ordering his removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) because he had been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude and finding him ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under
8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (commonly referred to as a “§ 212(h) waiver”). Navarro-
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60714 Document: 00512666648 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014
No. 13-60714
Hernandez has abandoned any argument challenging the BIA’s discretionary
denial of his application for a § 212(h) waiver by failing to adequately brief the
issue. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
The sole issue on appeal is whether the IJ erred by denying Navarro-
Hernandez’s request for a continuance.
Because Navarro-Hernandez is removable for having committed a crime
involving moral turpitude, we lack jurisdiction to review the final order of
removal and retain jurisdiction only to review constitutional claims or
questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1252(a)(2)(C), (D).
Navarro-Hernandez contends that the IJ deprived him of his due process rights
by denying his motion to continue for the purpose of filing a medical
examination report and hearing testimony from his wife. However, under the
facts of this case, the decision to deny a motion for a continuance is not a
constitutional claim or legal question that this court has jurisdiction to review.
See Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir. 2010).
Navarro-Hernandez frames his challenge to the denial of his request for
a continuance as whether the IJ violated his due process rights. His
arguments, however, challenge the IJ’s discretionary determination regarding
whether to grant or deny a continuance. Thus, it is not subject to review by
this court. An alien cannot cloak his arguments in constitutional garb to avoid
the strict jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(C). Hadwani v.
Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Navarro-Hernandez’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
2