Johnson 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
May 2, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60472
Summary Calendar
EDNA CHIEBONAM JOHNSON (OKOYE),
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(A45-079-735)
_________________________________________________________________
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In January 2003, Edna Chiebonam Johnson (Okoye) (hereinafter
Johnson), a native and citizen of Nigeria, was ordered removed from
the United States to Nigeria. In November 2005, Johnson moved the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen her case in order to
allow her to present new evidence. The BIA denied relief, finding:
the motion was untimely; and, her case did not present exceptional

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
circumstances warranting the exercise of its discretionary
authority to sua sponte reopen her case.
This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen
“under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard”.
Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469 (5th Cir. 2005).
With certain limited exceptions, a “motion to reopen shall be filed
within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order
of removal”. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I); see also 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2). Johnson does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that
her motion to reopen was not filed within 90 days of the date of
entry of the BIA’s decision affirming the immigration judge’s
decision ordering her removal. Further, she does not present any
statutory or regulatory exception to the filing of her untimely
motion to reopen. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over
her petition. See Osabede v. Gonzales, No. 06-60184, 2007 WL
299364, at *1 (29 Jan. 2007) (per curiam); cf. Panjwani v.
Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 631 (5th Cir. 2005) (court has jurisdiction
to review BIA’s denial of untimely motion to reopen because
petitioner’s motion was based on changed country circumstances).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --