United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 11, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60685
Summary Calendar
FATIMA RAZIUDDIN-CYCLEWALA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29-327-691
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fatima Raziuddin-Cyclewala (“Raziuddin”) petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of
her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to
reopen her deportation proceedings. She argues 1) that the BIA
should have liberally construed her motion and should have
forgiven her failure to serve the Office of the District Counsel
and to include the appropriate application for relief and 2) that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-60685
-2-
her situation warranted equitable tolling of the limitations
period for filing a motion to reopen.
We “will defer to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration
regulations if the interpretation is reasonable.” Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Motions to reopen
immigration proceedings are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216
F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). “There is no statutory provision
for reopening; the authority to reopen derives solely from
regulations promulgated by the Attorney General.” Id. “We
therefore apply a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard
in reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.” Id.
Raziuddin’s motion to reopen did not include an application
seeking a change of status or the documentation demonstrating her
entitlement to such relief. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(c)(1),
3.23(b)(1) (1997) (renumbered 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2 and 1003.23(b)).
She did not serve the District Counsel with the motion, and the
INS filed an opposition to the motion. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.2(g)(2)
(1997). The BIA’s dismissal of Raziuddin’s appeal of the
Immigration Judge’s denial of her motion to reopen was not an
abuse of discretion. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I & N Dec.
1025, 1025-26 (1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.