
    Nancy Muringi NJOROGE, Petitioner v. Loretta LYNCH, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-60214
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2015.
    Irene G. Mugambi, Law Office of Irene Mugambi, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
    Christina J. Martin, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nancy Muringi Njoroge, a native and citizen of-Kenya, has petitioned for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal and conclusion that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of deportation, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Njoroge contends that she made the necessary showing to be eligible for relief.

We conclude that Njoroge has abandoned her claims by failing to brief them sufficiently. Her attorney-prepared brief perfunctorily and generally sets forth the claims that she seeks to assert on appeal. Njoroge fails to cite to the record or otherwise discuss pertinent facts, does not apply the relevant legal standards to the facts of the case, and provides no legal analysis or substantive discussion of the bases for her claims. Moreover, Njoroge does not contest the grounds upon which the IJ and the BIA denied her claims and does not address substantively any specific error committed by the IJ or the BIA. Thus, because Njoroge has not offered a meaningful factual discussion or legal analysis, she has effectively waived her claims for relief. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003) (holding that arguments not briefed are abandoned); Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 182 (5th Cir.1986); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8)(A).

Accordingly, Njoroge’s petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     