United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 2, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60978
Summary Calendar
SANDRA TERESA CALDERON-ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A77 668 623)
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DEMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sandra Teresa Calderon-Acosta petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision summarily
affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of her motion to
reopen her immigration proceedings contending that (1) she was
erroneously held removable in absentia because she never received
notice of the immigration hearing, (2) the reopening of her
immigration proceedings was improperly denied because she made a
prima facie showing of statutory eligibility for an adjustment in
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60978
-2-
status to that of a permanent resident, and (3) the BIA’s summary
affirmance denied her due process.
Calderon’s petition for review, however, was timely only
with regard to the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen and for
reconsideration. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 395-98 (1995).
Consequently, we have jurisdiction to review only the issue
whether the BIA abused its discretion in that regard. See
Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1141 (5th Cir. 1984); Pritchett
v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993).
Calderon has not briefed the propriety of the BIA’s ruling
that her second request to reopen the immigration proceedings was
an impermissible multiple motion, and, therefore, its review is
waived. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052
(5th Cir. 1986). With respect to Calderon’s request to the BIA
for reconsideration of its summary affirmance of the denial of
her motion to reopen, she has failed to show that the BIA made
an error of either fact or law on the record before it. See
8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(b)(1)(2003); Osuchukwu, 744 F.2d at 1143.
Consequently, the denial of the request for reconsideration was
not an abuse of discretion.
PETITION DENIED.