United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 6, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60100
Summary Calendar
HENRY ALEXIS ROSALES-SANTOS,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A28 589 967
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Alexis Rosales-Santos seeks a petition to review
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his motion
to reopen as barred by the time and number limits of 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). Rosales-Santos argues that those limits do not
apply to his motion to reopen the in absentia deportation
proceeding based on his lack of notice.
However, the BIA did not treat Rosales-Santos’s motion to
reopen as seeking to rescind the in absentia deportation order.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Instead, the BIA construed the motion as one to reopen its own
September 23, 1999, decision. Rosales-Santos makes no argument
that the BIA erred in construing his motion as a motion to reopen
its prior decision and, accordingly, that issue is waived. See
Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). As the BIA
noted, Rosales-Santos had previously filed motions to reopen with
both the IJ and the BIA and that the instant motion to reopen was
filed more than six years after the BIA’s September 1999 decision.
Accordingly, the BIA did not err in determining that the instant
motion to reopen was both time- and numerically-barred. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 488 (5th
Cir. 2006).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2