* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. 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 provi ded an address to the Immigration and Naturalization Service in March 2000. Later that month, notice of the August 2000 hearing was sent to Resinos at that address. Resinos’s counsel now contends that Resinos did not receive notice of the hearing. As counsel’s statement is not evidence, s ee 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 circumstanceswarranting reopening ofher 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 that the IJ should have reopened the removal proceedings sua sponte and that the proceedings shouldNo. 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.