Valiente-Mazariego v. Gonzales , 180 F. App'x 540 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-60300
Summary Calendar
FIDELIA YORLENI VALIENTE-MAZARIEGO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 182 907
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fidelia Yorleni Valiente-Mazariego (Valiente) petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) July 2, 2004,
order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of reconsideration
of the decision finding her removable, as well as the BIA’s
November 18, 2004, order denying her motion to reopen. Because
the petition for review is timely only as to the November 18,
2004, order, we have jurisdiction over that order only. See
Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394 (1995); Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,
997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir. 1993); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (b)(1).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-60300
-2-
Valiente has not demonstrated that the BIA abused its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Ogbemudia v. INS,
988 F.2d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 1993). She argues that counsel was
ineffective in failing to appear on her behalf in Texas and in
failing to obtain a change of venue. Valiente asserts that she
was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness because she would
have requested asylum had he attended or had her case been
transferred to California, conclusionally stating that she fears
for her life if she returns to her native country of Guatemala.
Valiente has not made any argument that she suffered past
persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution
based on any statutorily protected ground so as to be eligible
for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Ontunez-Tursios v.
Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2002). Because she has not
shown statutory entitlement to asylum and because she has
conceded removability, she cannot show that counsel’s alleged
ineffectiveness affected the outcome of her case. See Miranda-
Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the
petition for review is DENIED.