United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 1, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60267
Summary Calendar
CHRISTIAN UCHENNA OKPOKO,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A29 971 289)
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner Christian Uchenna Okpoko has filed a petition for
review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
affirming the denial of Okpoko’s motion to reopen his deportation
proceeding. Okpoko was ordered deported, in absentia, after he
failed to appear for his deportation hearing. We review for abuse
of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. See Lara v.
Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Okpoko does not take issue with the BIA’s factual
determination that the immigration court sent notice of his
deportation hearing, via certified mail, to his addresses of
record. Instead, he argues that the BIA’s failure to consider 8
C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(4)(ii)(A)(2) was an abuse of its discretion. He
contends that, under this regulation, an in absentia order of
deportation may be rescinded if the alien did not receive notice of
the deportation hearing.
We “accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the
immigration statute unless there are compelling indications that
its interpretation is incorrect.” Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188
(5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In In re: Grijalva, 21 I & N
Dec. 27, 1995 WL 314388 (BIA 1995), the BIA determined that proof
of actual service or receipt of the notice is not required to
effect service of a deportation proceeding under the immigration
statute.
Okpoko has failed to demonstrate that the BIA’s statutory
interpretation in Grijalva is not entitled to deference. As Okpoko
thus has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen, his petition for review must be
denied.
PETITION DENIED.
2