Diaz v. Holder

Fifth Circuit

Diaz v. Holder

436 F. App'x 372

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 10, 2011·No. No. 10-60796·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

Andres Diaz petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. To the extent that Millan raises arguments concerning the merits of his appeal to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction, because the petition for review is timely only as to the denial of the motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Because Millan does not contest the denial of the motion on the ground that it failed to identify previously unavailable material evidence, he has abandoned any such claim before this court. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); see also Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

*

Andres Diaz petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. To the extent that Millan raises arguments concerning the merits of his appeal to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction, because the petition for review is timely only as to the denial of the motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Because Millan does not contest the denial of the motion on the ground that it failed to identify previously unavailable material evidence, he has abandoned any such claim before this court. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988); see also Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Diaz v. Holder, 436 F. App'x 372 (5th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

436 F. App'x 372 (Diaz v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related