United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 26, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_________________________ Clerk
No. 03 - 60655
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
RUPERTO GUTIERREZ-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
______________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91-283-466
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
In this appeal, we review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying Ruperto
Gutierrez-Morales’ motion to reopen his removal proceedings and refusing to accept his untimely
application for cancellation of removal.
Gutierrez-Morales argues that the Immigration Judge violated his due process rights by
refusing to accept his untimely application for cancellation of removal and by denying his motion
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
to reopen. Gutierrez-Morales also argues that the arrest which prompted his removal was illegal.
Gutierrez-Morales waived the opportunity to submit his application for cancellation of
removal when he missed the imposed filing deadline. 8 C.F.R. § 3.31(c) (2003). His motion to
reopen was properly denied because he was informed of his right to apply for cancellation of
removal, and he was provided an opportunity to do so. 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(3) (2002). Thus, the
Immigration Judge did not violate Gutierrez-Morales’ due process rights.
Gutierrez-Morales’ challenge to his arrest does not warrant relief because even if he could
demonstrate that his arrest was illegal, it would have no bearing on the validity of his subsequent
removal. I.N.S. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1040 (1984).
Gutierrez-Morales’ petition for review is therefore denied.
-2-