Juan Contreras v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-60880 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: EGJ , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 02/07/2011 [09-60880]

Juan Contreras v. Ericase: 09-60880 C Holder, Jr.

Document: 00511323762 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60880 S u m m a r y Calendar December 16, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

J U A N HERNAN CONTRERAS, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A028 021 832

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* J u a n Hernan Contreras, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for r e v ie w of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board's) decision denying his m o t io n to reconsider. Contreras's motion to reconsider was filed after the

B o a r d 's August 10, 2009 dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge's (I J 's ) denial of his motion to reopen his 1995 deportation proceedings. Contreras d id not file a petition for review of the Board's August 10, 2009 dismissal of his a p p e a l. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60880 Document: 00511323762 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2010 No. 09-60880 C ir . 2006). Therefore, that decision became final. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 3 8 6 , 388-90, 394-95 (1995). Nevertheless, the arguments in Contreras's brief are a ll aimed at challenging the August 10, 2009 dismissal and the IJ's denial of his m o t io n to reopen. Absent a timely petition for review of the August 10, 2009 o r d e r , this court lacks jurisdiction to review Contreras's claims. See Stone, 5 1 4 U.S. at 394-95. A lt h o u g h Contreras raised the issue of venue in his motion to reconsider, h e does not make any arguments relating to venue. He has therefore abandoned t h e only issue before this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th C ir . 2003). Contreras's petition for review is therefore DENIED.

2