Rosales-Santos v. Gonzales, No. 06-60100 (5th Cir. 2007)

 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 June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60100 Summary Calendar HENRY ALEXIS ROSALES-SANTOS, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A28 589 967 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Henry Alexis Rosales-Santos seeks a petition to review the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen as barred by the time and number limits of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). apply to his Rosales-Santos argues that those limits do not motion to reopen the in absentia deportation proceeding based on his lack of notice. However, the BIA did not treat Rosales-Santos s motion to reopen as seeking to rescind the in absentia deportation order. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Instead, the BIA construed the motion as one to reopen its own September 23, 1999, decision. Rosales-Santos makes no argument that the BIA erred in construing his motion as a motion to reopen its prior decision and, accordingly, that issue is waived. Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). See As the BIA noted, Rosales-Santos had previously filed motions to reopen with both the IJ and the BIA and that the instant motion to reopen was filed more than six years after the BIA s September 1999 decision. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that the instant motion to reopen was both time- and numerically-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2006). The petition for review is DENIED. 2

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.