Case: 10-60136 Document: 00511282867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 3, 2010
No. 10-60136
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
DORIS VELIZ-CASTRO,
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. A096 329 351
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Doris Veliz-Castro, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia
removal proceedings. She argues that her due process rights were violated
because she was not provided with a list of counsel as required by the
Immigration 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
Case: 10-60136 Document: 00511282867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2010
No. 10-60136
argument 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).
Veliz-Castro also contends that there is no evidence that she was advised
of the consequences of failing to appear before the immigration court. We review
the 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
Veliz-Castro failed to provide authorities with a current mailing address and
was orally notified in Spanish of the consequences of failing to appear is
supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1994). Veliz-Castro’s failure to provide a current 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 v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir.
2009). The petition for review is DENIED.
2