Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0482-01.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

Edith RODRIGUEZ-DEARMY, also known as Edith Aird, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60500.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 17, 2004.
    Scott D. Levy, Jonathan H. Lamb, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda S. Wernery, William Clark Minick, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM

Edith Rodriguez-DeArmy petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen based on her marriage to a United States citizen and the filing of an alien relative petition on her behalf. Rodriguez contends that the BIA erred in stating that a prior visa petition filed on her behalf was denied due to marriage fraud.

The BIA did note that the Department of Homeland Security opposed the motion to reopen on the basis that the prior visa petition was denied for marriage fraud. But, the basis for denial of the petition was that Rodriguez failed to make a prima facie showing that she was eligible for relief from removal. Rodriguez has not shown that she meets the five factors set forth in Matter of Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I & N Dec. 253, 256 (BIA 2002), for granting a motion to reopen. Therefore, she has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion. See de Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir.1997).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.