Osabede v. Gonzales , 216 F. App'x 400 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-60184 Clerk
Summary Calendar
CHARLES CHIE OSABEDE, also known as Charles Chize Osabede,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A75 232 237
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Osabede, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
denying as untimely his motion to reopen the removal proceedings
that he filed in December 2005. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C);
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In July 1999 the BIA dismissed Osabede’s
appeal of a decision by an immigration judge denying his applica-
tion for asylum and withholding of removal and ordering that he be
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
removed to Brazil. Osabede’s motion to reopen proceedings was due
within ninety days of the date of entry of a final administrative
order of removal. See § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
In his motion to reopen, Osabede frivolously suggested that
his motion was based on his failure to appear at his immigration
hearing, an allegation that is flatly contradicted by the record of
that hearing. Although a failure to appear may support the filing
of an untimely motion to reopen under an exception enumerated in
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii) and may support an exercise of jurisdiction
by this court, see Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th
Cir. 2005), Osabede has abandoned any reliance on such exception in
his petition for review, see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830,
833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Osabede’s petition for review relies on no exception listed in
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C) and cites no equitable basis for avoiding the
statutory ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen. Ac-
cordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Osabede’s petition, because
there is “‘no meaningful standard against which to review’” the
BIA’s decision. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246,
249 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The petition for review is
thus DISMISSED, and Osabede’s motion to stay removal is DENIED.