United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 14, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60585
Summary Calendar
CANDIDO SANTOS,
Petitioner,
versus
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28 639 968
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Candido Santos has filed a petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
reopen his deportation proceeding, which he filed pursuant to
new deadlines set forth in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act (“NACARA”) and the Legal Immigration Family
Equity (“LIFE”) Act. The BIA denied the motion, which was made
complete in June 2000, as untimely under the applicable NACARA
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60585
-2-
regulatory deadlines, and it concluded that Santos was not
alternatively eligible to take advantage of amended LIFE Act
deadlines because he had not demonstrated that he had actually
been deported and then illegally re-entered the country.
Santos has failed to challenge the BIA’s determination that
his claims under NACARA were untimely, and he does not even brief
any claims under NACARA itself. He has effectively abandoned
these claims. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993); Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.
1986). Santos’ failure to challenge the BIA’s conclusion that
any NACARA claims were time-barred is the same as if he had not
appealed that aspect of the judgment. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Santos’ primary argument is that this court should take
judicial notice of INS documents showing that he was deported in
1987 or 1988 and remand the case to the BIA. He argues that this
would permit him to demonstrate that he was eligible for NACARA
relief under the extended deadlines set forth in the LIFE Act.
Section 203 of NACARA allowed nationals from El Salvador
(and other Central American nations) to apply for discretionary
relief from deportation under more relaxed terms than is normally
required under immigration laws. See Chapinski v. Ziglar,
278 F.3d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 2002).
The LIFE Act amendments provide that an alien who was
otherwise eligible for suspension of deportation pursuant to
No. 02-60585
-3-
NACARA’s amendments to the Illegal Immigration and Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) was not barred
from applying for such relief by operation of Immigration and
Naturalization Act (“INA”) § 241(a)(5). See LIFE Act amendment
§ 1505(a)(1)(B)(2)(A), PL 106-554, 2000 HR 4577. Section
241(a)(5) of INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5), provides for
reinstatement of removal orders for aliens who reentered the
United States after having been removed. Therefore, aliens who
were previously barred from seeking relief pursuant to NACARA
because of § 241(a)(5), but who became eligible for relief
pursuant the LIFE Act amendments, were allowed additional time
to file a NACARA motion to reopen. See LIFE Act amendment
§ 1505(a)(2).
Even if Santos could demonstrate that he was eligible to
proceed under the LIFE Act’s extended deadlines, he has not
established that he has satisfied the prerequisites for NACARA
relief. Under NACARA § 203, a Salvadoran national who entered
the United States before certain dates may not apply for
suspension of deportation unless he shows, inter alia, that he
either filed an application for asylum on or before December 31,
1991, or registered for benefits and applied for asylum pursuant
to the settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches
v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991). See IIRIRA
§ 309(c)(5)(C)(i); NACARA § 203(a). Because Santos has not
shown that he has satisfied either of these prerequisites, he is
No. 02-60585
-4-
not eligible for NACARA relief under the LIFE Act amendments or
otherwise.
To the extent that Santos argues that the LIFE Act
amendments violate his due-process rights, this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider such contention because Santos did
not administratively exhaust it before the BIA. See Goonsuwan
v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383, 385-86 (5th Cir. 2001) (habeas corpus
proceeding); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2001).
Santos’ motion to augment or supplement the record with
documentation allegedly showing that he was deported in 1988 is
DENIED as unnecessary.
For the foregoing reasons, Santos’ petition for review is
DENIED.