Abia v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 31, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60922
Summary Calendar
WALTER NOSIKE ABIA,
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 329 479
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Walter Nosike Abia, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion
to reopen.
Abia does not challenge the BIA’s determination that his
motion to reopen was untimely filed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2)
and (c)(2), and thus he has abandoned these issues. See Al-Ra’id
v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). Although Abia argues
that the BIA erred in denying his motion to reopen his case sua
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
sponte based on exceptional circumstances, this court does not have
jurisdiction to consider this issue. See Enriquez-Alvarado v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004).
Abia also argues that his due process and equal protection
rights were violated when the BIA refused to reopen his case.
However, because he does not have a liberty interest in the BIA’s
denial of his motion to reopen, Abia cannot establish a due process
violation. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550-51
(5th Cir. 2006). Because Abia has not adequately briefed any equal
protection violation, he has abandoned this issue. See Al-Ra’id,
69 F.3d at 33; Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.
1986).
DENY PETITION.
2