
    Wayne CALAME, also known as Wayne Christopher Calame, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-60040
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 30, 2007.
    Wayne Caíame, Newburgh, NY, pro se.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Robert N. Markle, John Clifford Cunningham, Saul Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Wayne Caíame has petitioned for review of the decision of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Ms appeal of the decision of the Immigration Judge (I J) denymg Calame’s request for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Agamst Torture (CAT). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determinations: that Caíame was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), as an alien convicted of a controlled substance violation, and under § 1227(a)(1)(B), as a nommmigrant overstay. The BIA agreed that Calame’s conviction of attempted criminal sale of co-came was “for a drug trafficking offense that is both an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime, so as to render the respondent ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal” and that Caíame had failed to meet his burden of proof under the CAT. Caíame timely filed his petition for review of the BIA’s decision. Thereafter, Caíame filed several motions to reopen and/or for reconsideration, all of which were demed. Caíame did not petition for review of the decisions denying the motions to reopen and/or for reconsideration.

Caíame contends that he was denied due process and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was advised to plead true to the allegation that he had been convicted m New York of attempted erimmal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He contends that his plea was unknowing and involuntary and that he was not advised of the consequences of his plea, as it made him ineligible for adjustment of status. He complains that he was not permitted to testify and to explain the circumstances of the offense and that counsel failed to call other witnesses on his behalf. Caíame argues that counsel knew that the IJs at the Oakdale detention facility never grant relief under the CAT and that, accordmgly, it was unreasonable for counsel to adopt a strategy that left him ineligible for other relief. Caíame contends that his conviction was for attempted criminal possession of cocaine, not attempted erimmal sale of cocaine. Caíame contends that his New York conviction was not a drug-trafficking aggravated felony because there was no showing that the offense involved a “sale.” He contends that the offense would not be considered a felony under the Controlled Substances Act. Caíame contends also that he is entitled to cancellation of removal under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

Although the foregoing issues were raised m Calame’s motions to reopen and/or for reconsideration, they were not raised on direct appeal. The “BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which require them own petitions for review.” Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.2006) (quotation marks omitted). Because Calame has not petitioned for review of the BIA’s decisions denying the motions to reopen and/or for reconsideration, this court does not have jurisdiction over the issues raised only in those motions. See id.; Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003).

Calame contends in his reply brief that the BIA erred in determining that his state offense was a “particularly serious crime.” Because this issue was not raised in Calame’s opening brief, we have not considered it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993). Calame raises no issue with respect to the BIA’s denial of relief under the CAT. Issues that are not briefed are waived. See Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004). The petition 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.
     