Case ID: f-appx_242/html/0992-01.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

Rambhai MANIKLAL-PATEL, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-61040
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 26, 2007.
    Isuf Kola, for Petitioner.
    
      Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, Harlingen, TX, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rambhai Maniklal-Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. Maniklal-Patel has abandoned any challenges to the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from the motion to reopen he filed with the immigration judge by failing to brief any issues relevant to that motion. See Al Ra’id v. Ingle, 69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir.1995). Maniklal-Patel argues that his BIA motion to reopen met the requirements set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Maniklal-Patel has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, his 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.