Case ID: f-appx_158/html/0629-01.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

Gregorio Antonio GOMEZ-VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-60779.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
    Anne Pilsbury, Central American Legal Assistance, Brooklyn, NY, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Suzanne Nicole Nardone, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gregorio Antonio Gomez-Vasquez, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing the appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings following an in abstentia order. The BIA ruled that the Immigration Judge’s in abstentia order of removal was not in error. Gomez asserts that the Immigration Judge should have granted his motion for change of venue and that the BIA should have found that the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in denying the motion. Gomez does not argue against the in abstentia removal order or the denial of the motion to reopen. All of his arguments focus on the change of venue issue only. He has failed to brief any issue from the BIA’s decision. As such, Gomez has abandoned all of his claims on appeal. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. I.N.S., 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Gomez’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.