Summary Calendar FANG LIN v. Michael Bmukasey, U Sattorney General

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-61148
Summary Calendar
FANG LIN
Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 838 680
Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Fang Lin petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen. Lin argues that the BIA erred in
denying her motion to reopen as numerically barred and untimely.
This court has jurisdiction to review the issue. See Panjwani v. Gonzales,
401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005). In reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to
reopen, this court applies a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard,
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 3, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-61148
2
regardless of the basis of the alien’s request for relief. Lara v. Trominski,
216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
The BIA determined that the motion was both numerically barred and
untimely and that Lin did not qualify for an exception to the numerical and time
restrictions for filing motions to reopen found in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). The BIA
determined further that, even if the motion was not barred, it would deny it “as
a matter of discretion” for the same reason it had denied Lin’s earlier motion to
reopen, namely, Lin’s fraudulent representations made during the immigration
proceedings.
The denial as a matter of discretion represents a separate, “independent”
ground for denying a motion to reopen. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
(1988). Lin does not address or contest the BIA’s determination that, even if the
motion was not barred, it would deny the motion “as a matter of discretion” on
the basis of her fraudulent representations. She likewise does not contest that
she made such fraudulent representations.
Because Lin has not addressed the denial of her motion to reopen as a
matter of discretion, she has abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, Lin’s petition for
review is DENIED. See Walker v. Thompson, 214 F.3d 615, 624-25
(5th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 2 --