Aranda-Tercero v. Gonzales, 235 F. App'x 321 (5th Cir. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Aranda-Tercero v. Gonzales, 235 F. App'x 321 (5th Cir. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roque ARANDA-TERCERO, Petitioner,
v.
Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
05-60650.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 13, 2007.
235 F. App'x 321
Roque Aranda-Tercero, Amarillo, TX, pro se., Thomas Ward Hussey, Linda Susan Wendtland, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, John S. Hogan, Holly Michele Smith, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, New Orleans, LA, Guadalupe R. Gonzales, El Paso, TX, for Respondent., Alberto R. Gonzales, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
Wiener, Garza, Benavides.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished
PER CURIAM: *

Roque Aranda-Tercero (Aranda), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing Aranda’s appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen. Aranda argues[*322] that the BIA abused its discretion by dismissing his motion to reopen as untimely.

For an alien whose order of deportation became final before March 22, 1999, a motion to reopen for the purpose of seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) “shall not be granted” unless the motion to reopen was filed by June 21, 1999. 8 C.F.R. 208.18(b)(2)(i). Aranda was ordered deported in April 1993. The motion to reopen at issue in this matter was filed in January 2005. The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Aranda’s appeal to the extent that he sought reopening under § 208.18(b)(2). To the extent that Aranda argues that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review that decision. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir.2004).

Aranda’s PETITION FOR REVIEW is DENIED. All other OUTSTANDING MOTIONS are also 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.