* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

** Resinos states that her real name is Arely Melchor Lopez.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 15, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60861

Summary Calendar

ANGELICA RESINOS-PEREZ

Petitioner

v.

ALBERTO R GONZALES, U S Attorney General

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A 78 274 814

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Angelica Resinos-Perez (Resinos)** petitions for review of a final order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her motion to

reopen her removal proceedings. Resinos, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
No. 06-60861

2

failed to appear for her removal hearing in August 2000 and was ordered

removed in absentia. She filed a motion to reopen in 2005. 

Resinos argues that she did not receive proper notice of the August 2000

hearing, that the immigration judge (IJ) should have considered whether she

was eligible for equitable tolling and whether she had established exceptional

circumstances for her failure to appear, that the IJ should have given specific

reasons for not reopening her case sua sponte, and that the IJ should have

reopened her case based on changed circumstances. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen “under a highly deferential

abuse of discretion standard.” Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 469

(5th Cir. 2005). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we

review the IJ's decision as the final agency determination. Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Resinos provided an address to the Immigration and Naturalization

Service in March 2000. Later that month, notice of the August 2000 hearing was

sentto Resinos atthat address. Resinos’s counsel now contends that Resinos did

not receive notice of the hearing. As counsel’s statement is not evidence, see

INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n.6 (1984), Resinos has not submitted any

evidence to support this contention. Accordingly, she has not established any

error with respect to her alleged lack of proper notice. See United States v.

Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Resinos does not specifically identify any facts that support her assertion

that she has established exceptional circumstances warranting reopening of her

removal proceedings or the application of equitable tolling. To the extent that

she contends that she was only 18-years old at the time she received her notice

to appear, this does not establish such exceptional circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(e)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 236.3.

We lack jurisdiction to review Resinos’s assertions thatthe IJ should have

reopened the removal proceedings sua sponte and that the proceedings should
No. 06-60861

3

have been reopened due to changed circumstances because she did not exhaust

her administrative remedies by raising these issues before the BIA. See Wang

v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).

Because Resinos has not established that the denial of her motion to

reopen was an abuse of discretion, the petition for review is DENIED.