Case: 15-60555 Document: 00513731988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-60555 FILED
Summary Calendar October 25, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BELKYS FRANCELIA GRANADOS-GALDAMEZ,
Petitioner
v.
LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A097 744 986
Before BENAVIDES, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Belkys Francelia Granados-Galdamez, a native and citizen of Honduras,
petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen her
in absentia removal proceedings. Granados-Galdamez argues only that she
did not receive notice of the removal hearing and that therefore her due process
rights were violated when the immigration judge ordered her removal.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 15-60555 Document: 00513731988 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2016
No. 15-60555
Granados-Galdamez has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion by
denying her motion to reopen. See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019,
1021 (5th Cir. 2014). The record reflects that Granados-Galdamez was
properly served, via personal service, with the notice to appear, which included
the date, time, and place of the removal hearing and was also advised in
Spanish of the consequences of failure to appear at the hearing. Moreover, we
are jurisdictionally barred from considering her lack of notice argument
because she did not raise it before the BIA. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132,
137 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Granados-Galdamez received proper notice of the
hearing, she cannot establish any due process violation. See Barrios-
Cantarero, 772 F.3d at 1021; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1),
(2).
Finally, the BIA determined that the motion to reopen was not a joint
motion and that it was untimely because it was not filed within 180 days of the
entry of the final order of removal. See § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). Granados-
Galdamez does not address these issues in her brief, and, as such, she has
abandoned them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
The petition for review is DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN
PART.
2