Background
Federal prisoner Liduvina Zuniga-Sagrero appealed the district court’s January 22, 2026 order denying her motion for expedited removal. Her notice of appeal identified only that order.
Zuniga-Sagrero’s appellate brief, however, did not address the expedited-removal ruling. Instead, it challenged an earlier November 7, 2025 order denying five postconviction motions, even though she had not filed a notice of appeal from that order.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the January 22 order because Zuniga-Sagrero abandoned every cognizable issue concerning it. Although courts liberally construe a pro se litigant’s filings, the litigant must still present arguments in the body of the appellate brief to preserve them. Zuniga-Sagrero did not mention or challenge the denial of expedited removal.
The court dismissed the appeal to the extent Zuniga-Sagrero sought review of the November 7 order. Because her notice of appeal did not designate that order, the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review it.
Key Takeaways
- Even pro se appellants abandon issues they fail to argue in their appellate briefs.
- A notice of appeal must identify the judgment or order the appellant seeks to challenge.
- The court affirmed the only properly appealed order and dismissed the attempted challenge to the earlier order for lack of jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that liberal construction of pro se filings does not excuse compliance with basic appellate requirements. The notice of appeal determines which rulings are within the appellate court’s jurisdiction, while the opening brief determines which challenges to those rulings remain preserved.