Talledo-Acosta, et al v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 2, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60707
Summary Calendar
EDUARDO ALFREDO TALLEDO-ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petitions for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A27 619 111
BIA No. A90 260 498
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eduardo Alfredo Talledo-Acosta seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial as untimely of his motion to
reopen immigration proceedings. Talledo-Acosta asserts that the
denial of his motion to reopen was a violation of his Fifth
Amendment due process rights because he has never been granted an
opportunity to present evidence on behalf of his application for
adjustment of status, which is based on a 1995-approved I-140
immigrant worker visa petition filed by his prospective employer.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60707
-2-
The decision to reopen proceedings is a discretionary
decision, and this court applies a highly deferential abuse of
discretion standard when reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion
to reopen. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
Talledo-Acosta does not challenge the BIA’s ruling that his
motion to reopen his 1986 deportation proceedings was untimely
filed. Thus, any challenge to the timeliness of his motion to
reopen is deemed abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Because there is no protected liberty
interest in a motion to reopen, Talledo-Acosta cannot establish a
due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. See Altamirano-
Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Talledo-Acosta’s petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --