Calderon-Acosta v. Ashcroft

Fifth Circuit

Calderon-Acosta v. Ashcroft

103 F. App'x 844

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2004

Docket03-60978

StatusUnpublished

This text of 103 F. App'x 844 (Calderon-Acosta v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calderon-Acosta v. Ashcroft, 103 F. App'x 844 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Sandra Teresa Calderon-Acosta petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings contending that (1) *845 she was erroneously held removable in absentia because she never received notice of the immigration hearing, (2) the reopening of her immigration proceedings was improperly denied because she made a prima facie showing of statutory eligibility for an adjustment in status to that of a permanent resident, and (3) the BIA’s summary affirmance denied her due process.

Calderon’s petition for review, however, was timely only with regard to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen and for reconsideration. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395-98, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Consequently, we have jurisdiction to review only the issue whether the BIA abused its discretion in that regard. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136,1141 (5th Cir.1984); Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir.1993).

Calderon has not briefed the propriety of the BIA’s ruling that her second request to reopen the immigration proceedings was an impermissible multiple motion, and, therefore, its review is waived. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986). With respect to Calderon’s request to the BIA for reconsideration of its summary affirmance of the denial of her motion to reopen, she has failed to show that the BIA made an error of either fact or law on the record before it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(b)(l)(2003); Osuchukwu, 744 F.2d at 1143. Consequently, the denial of the request for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion.

PETITION 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Sandra Teresa Calderon-Acosta petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings contending that (1) *845 she was erroneously held removable in absentia because she never received notice of the immigration hearing, (2) the reopening of her immigration proceedings was improperly denied because she made a prima facie showing of statutory eligibility for an adjustment in status to that of a permanent resident, and (3) the BIA’s summary affirmance denied her due process.

Calderon’s petition for review, however, was timely only with regard to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen and for reconsideration. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395-98, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Consequently, we have jurisdiction to review only the issue whether the BIA abused its discretion in that regard. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136,1141 (5th Cir.1984); Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir.1993).

Calderon has not briefed the propriety of the BIA’s ruling that her second request to reopen the immigration proceedings was an impermissible multiple motion, and, therefore, its review is waived. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986). With respect to Calderon’s request to the BIA for reconsideration of its summary affirmance of the denial of her motion to reopen, she has failed to show that the BIA made an error of either fact or law on the record before it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(b)(l)(2003); Osuchukwu, 744 F.2d at 1143. Consequently, the denial of the request for reconsideration was not an abuse of discretion.

PETITION 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-acosta-v-ashcroft-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack