Abia v. Gonzales , 235 F. App'x 257 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                   July 31, 2007
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-60922
    Summary Calendar
    WALTER NOSIKE ABIA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    --------------------
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A28 329 479
    --------------------
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Walter Nosike Abia, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals
    the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion
    to reopen.
    Abia does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his
    motion to reopen was untimely filed under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2
    (b)(2)
    and (c)(2), and thus he has abandoned these issues.      See Al-Ra’id
    v. Ingle, 
    69 F.3d 28
    , 33 (5th Cir. 1995).      Although Abia argues
    that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen his case sua
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    sponte based on exceptional circumstances, this court does not have
    jurisdiction to consider this issue.     See Enriquez-Alvarado v.
    Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 246
    , 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Abia also argues that his due process and equal protection
    rights were violated when the BIA refused to reopen his case.
    However, because he does not have a liberty interest in the BIA’s
    denial of his motion to reopen, Abia cannot establish a due process
    violation.   See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 547
    , 550-51
    (5th Cir. 2006). Because Abia has not adequately briefed any equal
    protection violation, he has abandoned this issue.   See Al-Ra’id,
    
    69 F.3d at 33
    ; Beasley v. McCotter, 
    798 F.2d 116
    , 118 (5th Cir.
    1986).
    DENY PETITION.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-60922

Citation Numbers: 235 F. App'x 257

Judges: Higginbotham, Jones, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 7/31/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023