Alvarado-Molina v. Gonzales , 192 F. App'x 310 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60710
Summary Calendar
HECTOR ALVARADO-MOLINA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A11 298 677
--------------------
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hector Alvarado-Molina has filed a petition for review of a
final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
the denial of his motion to reopen his 1999 removal proceedings.
He argues that the BIA should have reopened his 1999 removal
proceedings because although the immigration judge in the 1999
proceedings found his theft conviction rendered him statutorily
ineligible for a waiver of removal, the subsequent decision of
INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), clarified that he was
eligible for such relief under former Immigration and Nationality
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60710
-2-
Act § 212(c), former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Specifically, he argues
that the 1999 removal proceedings violated his due process
rights.
Alvarado-Molina’s due process claim, which we review de
novo, is without merit. See Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595, 598
(5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Lopez-Ortiz, 313 F.3d 225,
230-31 (5th Cir. 2002). Alvarado-Molina has not otherwise shown
that the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen was an abuse of
discretion. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.
2000); see also Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 674-76
(5th Cir. 2003). The petition for review is DENIED.