Case ID: f-appx_236/html/0977-01.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

Moses Appoh ADAMS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60874
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 25, 2007.
    Linda Lavada Walker, Law Offices of Linda Walker, Stafford, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Moses Appoh Adams, a citizen of Ghana, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen. The Government contends Adams’ petition for review is timely only as to the denial of his motion to reconsider, while his brief challenges only the denial of his motion to reopen. We agree.

Because Adams’ petition for review was not filed within 30 days of the denial of the motion to reopen, it is dismissed as to that denial. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS, 997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993). Adams’ petition is timely as to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider. Adams has waived review of that denial, however, by failing to challenge it in his brief. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n. 15 (5th Cir.1993); Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir.1986). Therefore, his petition is denied as to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reconsider.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.