Doris Veliz-Castro v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-60136 Affirmed] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 12/27/2010 [10-60136]

Doris Veliz-Castro v.Case: 10-60136 Eric Holder, Jr.

Document: 00511282867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-60136 S u m m a r y Calendar November 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D O R I S VELIZ-CASTRO, 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. A096 329 351

B e fo r e REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* D o r is Veliz-Castro, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review o f the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal fr o m the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia r e m o v a l proceedings. She argues that her due process rights were violated b e c a u s e she was not provided with a list of counsel as required by the I m m ig r a t io n and Nationality Act. Because Veliz-Castro did not raise this

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-60136 Document: 00511282867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2010 No. 10-60136 a r g u m e n t before the IJ or the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004). V e liz -C a s t r o also contends that there is no evidence that she was advised o f the consequences of failing to appear before the immigration court. We review t h e BIA's decision under a "highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard." Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). The BIA's finding that V e liz -C a s t r o failed to provide authorities with a current mailing address and w a s orally notified in Spanish of the consequences of failing to appear is s u p p o r t e d by substantial evidence in the record. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 7 8 (5th Cir. 1994). Veliz-Castro's failure to provide a current address precludes h e r from obtaining rescission of the in absentia order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). The petition for review is DENIED.

2