
    Ismael Mahdi OMAR, also known as Ismael Omar, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-60098
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 21, 2012.
    Ismael Mahdi Omar, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Ann M. Welhaf, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ismael Mahdi Omar, a native and citizen of Djibouti, Africa, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.

Omar makes only conclusional arguments that his removal was barred by the principle of res judicata and that he was prejudiced during his removal proceedings because documentary evidence he submitted in support of his claims was either not submitted to the IJ or not considered by the IJ. Omar does not address the BIA’s reasons for rejecting his res judicata argument or its finding that he had a full and fair opportunity to present his claims and that the immigration proceedings were not unfair. In addition, he fails to address the BIA’s findings with respect to his requests for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under CAT.

Omar’s petitions for review do not provide “even the slightest identification of any error” in the BIA’s legal analyses or the application of the analyses to his claims. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987); Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Issues not raised and conclusional and inadequately briefed arguments are waived. Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n. 1 (5th Cir.2008); Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 833; Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, Omar’s petitions for review are 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     