Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria Teresa RODRIGUEZ-UCLES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60876.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    DECIDED: May 26, 2004.
    Maria T. Lopez, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Elisabeth Layton, US Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Regina Byrd, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, US Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, E.M. TrominsM, District Director, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Maria Teresa Rodriguez-Ucles (“Uncles”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reconsider its dismissal of her appeal. Rodriguez’s appeal was dismissed for failure to file a separate written brief or statement after indicating on the notice of appeal that one would be filed. In her petition for review, Rodriguez asserts that she is entitled to an adjustment in status and argues at length that this court has jurisdiction over her claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As Rodriguez has not filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, this court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to that statute. Rodriguez offers no argument regarding the denial of her motion for reconsideration. Therefore, she has waived its review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.