United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT December 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-61006
Summary Calendar
LILIA REYES-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A70 879 903)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lilia Reyes-Sanchez seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) 21 October 2004 final removal order, in which the
BIA reversed its earlier affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
cancellation of removal.
In 1989, Reyes-Sanchez entered the United States illegally
from Mexico. She has lived in the United States since then, but
returned to Mexico on three separate occasions to visit ill
relatives. Upon each re-entry, she was asked to name her country
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
of citizenship; she falsely stated she was a United States citizen.
Reyes-Sanchez was prepared to support this false assertion with
falsified documents; she had obtained a Texas identification card
and driver’s license, using her sister-in-law’s birth certificate
and social security number (she changed the last two digits of this
number). Although she was never asked to produce these documents
upon re-entry, she did utilize them to obtain employment and at
other times when the need arose.
On 28 March 2001, removal proceedings were initiated against
Reyes-Sanchez. She was charged with being removable because: she
possessed neither a valid, unexpired immigration visa, nor any
other recognized document, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A); and she
falsely represented herself as a United States citizen, id. §
1227(a)(3)(D). Reyes-Sanchez admitted these allegations but denied
being removable; the IJ found her removable.
Reyes-Sanchez then sought cancellation of removal as a non-
permanent resident alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); she later
added that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A), removal should also be
cancelled because she was a battered spouse. The IJ found her
eligible as a battered spouse. On appeal, the BIA affirmed the
IJ’s decision without a written opinion.
The former Immigration and Nationalization Service moved for
reconsideration; the BIA’s resulting 21 October 2004 final order
granted this motion, set aside its earlier affirmance of the IJ’s
cancellation of removal, and ordered Reyes-Sanchez removed from the
2
United States. Reyes-Sanchez moved to reopen and reconsider, but
the BIA denied this motion.
The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence; its legal conclusions, de novo. Lopez-Gomez v. Ashcroft,
263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). In reaching its decisions, the
BIA need not refer to specific evidence upon which it relies, or
provide a lengthy discussion of its reasoning. See Osuchukwu v.
INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) (“[The BIA] has no duty
to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is
merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its
decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to
perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.”).
Respondent challenges the sufficiency of Reyes-Sanchez’s
brief. Her cursory arguments are barely sufficient.
Reyes-Sanchez maintains: the BIA lacked statutory authority
to order removal; instead, it should have remanded her case to the
IJ. She fails, however, to provide any authority supporting her
assertion. Reyes-Sanchez repeatedly references a Ninth Circuit
habeas removal case, Noriega-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 874 (9th
Cir. 2003). It is not on point. Unlike the IJ in Noriega-Lopez,
the IJ here had already found Reyes-Sanchez removable.
The BIA concluded correctly that Reyes-Sanchez was ineligible
for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(2) because she did not meet each of its five requirements.
Reyes-Sanchez did not meet the fourth requirement: she is
3
deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(iv) for falsely claiming
to be a United States citizen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(D)(i)
(Supp. 2005) (“Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely
represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any
purpose or benefit under this chapter ... or any Federal or State
law is deportable.”).
DENIED
4