to the plight of the plaintiff’. Id. at 537-38 (setting forth the elements of the cause of action in analyzing a pleading’s constitutional claim for relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Because Reyes-Gomez did not raise this state-created danger challenge in district court, we will not review it here. Martinez v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 300 F.3d 567, 574 (5th Cir.2002) (refusing to disturb this court’s “long established course of refusing, absent extraordinary circumstances, to entertain legal issues raised for the first time on appeal”). Second, Reyes-Gomez claims that his removal to the Dominican Republic would constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This claim is without merit. Cortez v. INS, 395 F.2d 965, 967 (5th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Reyes-Gomez contends that Cortez cannot stand
holding that various fifth and sixth amendment protections apply to juvenile proceedings holding that eighth amendment protections against cruel and unusual punish ment do not apply to deportation proceedings holding execution of the mentally retarded constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved