United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 2, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60204
Summary Calendar
JONNY BENJAMIN ALVARADO-SOLIS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A74 589 319
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jonny Benjamin Alvarado-Solis (Alvarado) seeks a petition for review
of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen to rescind his
1996 in absentia order of deportation or, alternatively, to adjust status. The
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60204
-2-
BIA’s decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Lara v. Trominski,
216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
Alvarado urges that the motion to reopen to rescind the 1996 in
absentia deportation order should have been granted because he never
received notice of the deportation hearing. Substantial evidence supports
the BIA’s finding that notice of the deportation hearing was mailed by
certified mail to the address Alvarado provided and, thus, that the notice
was sufficient. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252b(c)(1) and (c)(3)(repealed Sept. 30,
1996); Matter of Grijalva, 21 I & N Dec. 27, 36-38 (BIA 1995). Accordingly,
the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the denial of the motion to
reopen to rescind the 1996 in absentia deportation order. Lara, 216 F.3d at
496.
Alvarado next contends that the BIA erred in upholding the denial of
his motion to reopen to adjust status based on relief that was not previously
available, specifically, his wife’s recently approved I-140 visa application.
He challenges the BIA’s determination that the motion to reopen to adjust
status was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 on the ground that he never
received notice of the deportation hearing. The argument fails for the
reason previously stated.
The petition for review is DENIED.