Case: 09-60920 Document: 00511271300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 22, 2010
No. 09-60920
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MARIA GOMEZ-DIAZ,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 133 898
Before KING, BENAVIDES and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Gomez-Diaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion
to reopen her in absentia removal proceeding. Her central argument is that an
in absentia order was improper because she did not receive notice of the hearing
and she did not have an address required by § 239(a)(1)(F)(i) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)(F)(i), to provide to authorities.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 09-60920 Document: 00511271300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2010
No. 09-60920
The BIA’s finding that Gomez-Diaz failed to provide authorities with a
current mailing address is supported by substantial evidence in the record. See
Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). The Board’s
determination that her failure to provide a current address precluded her from
receiving notice of her removal hearing is correct. See § 1229(a); Gomez-
Palacios, 560 F.3d 354, 359 (5th Cir. 2009). Likewise, her failure to provide an
address precludes her from obtaining rescission of the in absentia order of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 360-61.
Gomez-Diaz’s remaining arguments, creative though unsupported by
controlling authority, do not overcome the highly deferential abuse of discretion
standard of review. See Maknojiya v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 588, 588-89 (5th Cir.
2005). The petition for review is DENIED.
2