Manrique-Solano v. Gonzales, No. 04-61098 (5th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-61098 Summary Calendar BLANCA VICTORIA MANRIQUE-SOLANO, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A29 934 433 -------------------Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* The Appellant, Blanca Victoria Manrique-Solano, is a citizen and native of Peru. She petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering her deported to Peru. Manrique-Solano argues that the BIA hearing in absentia at which she was ordered deported violates her due process because she did not receive appellant s * last adequate known notice. address six Notice weeks was after sent she to had the been 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 04-60035 -2released on her own recognizance by the INS. The release was conditioned on an agreement to appear in court within two weeks and to provide a valid mailing address. The appellant claims that there is no evidence that the address of record was valid or that it was provided by her. Even assuming the address was invalid, the appellant was required under the release order to provide a valid address and a failure to do so eliminates any claims that notice was inadequate. United States v. Estrada-Trochez,66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995). The appellant also contests the denial by the immigration judge of a motion to re-open on June 16, 2003. The immigration judge did not abuse its discretion in holding that the motion was barred as only one motion to reopen is permissible. INA §240(c)(6)(A). The petition for review is DENIED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.