Phillip L. Powell v. Alberto R. Gonzales

* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the
record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July15, 2005*
Decided July 18, 2005
Before
Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge
Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
No. 04-3375
PHILLIP L. POWELL,
Petitioner,
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
A96 166 868
O R D E R
Phillip Powell is a native and citizen of Jamaica. His father, a naturalized
United States citizen, filed a visa petition on Powell’s behalf in 2001, but Powell
entered the United States without inspection in 2002. The Department of
Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings and Powell applied for asylum,
but eventually withdrew the application and agreed to depart voluntarily by
December 3, 2003. Powell never departed, however, and instead sought new
counsel to help him move to reopen proceedings and stay removal. The
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-3375 Page 2
Immigration Judge denied the motion for a stay of removal in December 2003 and
the motion to reopen in January 2004, and the Board of Immigration Appeals
affirmed.
Powell, acting pro se, filed with this court two submissions, apparently
seeking to appeal the denial of his motion to stay removal. His cursory
submissions, however, do not present any specific legal challenge to the BIA’s or IJ’s
analysis, but instead merely assert that he would like to remain in the United
States to work and live with his family. Powell’s submissions lack citations to the
record and legal authority, and accordingly do not comply with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9), which requires even pro se litigants to submit a brief
containing cognizable arguments with supporting citations. See Anderson v.
Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). Thus we
must DISMISS his petition.

-- 2 of 2 --