United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 4, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60233
Summary Calendar
ALFREDO REVILLA-MORENO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
-----------------------------------------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A91 017 305
-----------------------------------------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Alfredo Revilla-Moreno has filed a petition for review challenging a removal order issued by
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on February 16, 2006. This court reviews the BIA’s rulings
of law de novo and the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Lopez-Gomez v.
Ashcroft, 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Revilla-Moreno argues that the 2006 removal order is erroneous because his 1999 removal
order is invalid in light of this court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d
921 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Revilla-Moreno’s 1999 removal order had been legally executed at the
time Chapa-Garza was decided, Chapa-Garza does not apply to the 1999 removal order
retroactively. See Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 675 (5th Cir. 2003); see also
Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft, 271 F.3d 1169, 1172 (9th Cir. 2001).
Revilla-Moreno argues that the BIA erred in concluding that it was without jurisdiction to
reopen the prior removal proceedings. Revilla-Moreno cannot show a gross miscarriage of justice
because he failed to file a petition for review in this court following the BIA’s decision in 1999. See
Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508, 515 (5th Cir. 2006). As in that case, there is no miscarriage
of justice because, if Revilla-Moreno had petitioned this court for review, “he could have attained the
result that was ultimately achieved by the petitioner in Chapa-Garza.” Id.
Revilla-Moreno’s petition for review is DENIED.
-2-