### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-60012 Summary Calendar

EDGAR ERNESTO MARTINEZ-DE LEON,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A098 592 670

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * An in absentia order of removal was entered by the Immigration Judge on June 28, 2005, r e quiring the removal of Edgar Ernesto Martinez-De Leon (Martinez) to El Salvador. On December 23, 2009, Martinez moved to reopen the removal proceedings so that he could apply for asylum. The BIA dismissed the motion to reopen as untimely filed. Martinez has petitioned this court for review of the BIA’s decision. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 11, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60012 Document: 00511663386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2011No. 11-60012

Martinez contends that the BIA abused its discretio n b y refusing to reopen his r e m o v a l proceedings because he was never properly served with Notice to Appear (NTA). The BIA found that Ma rti nez was personally served with an NTA on March 30, 2005, which set forth the date and time of his hearing. The NTA bears Martinez’s signature and fingerprint; it explained the consequences of failing to appear, and it indicated that Martinez was advised orally in Spanish of the time and place of his he a ri n g a n d the consequences of failing to appear. The hearing was held on the date set forth in the NTA, but Martinez did not appear. The BIA concluded that M artinez was properly notified of the immigration hearing. This finding is supported by substantial evid e n c e . Se e Kohwarien v. Holder , 635 F.3d 174, 17 8 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez raises no argument with respect to the BIA’s conclusion that he had failed to m ake any showing of changed circumstances in El Salvador. Issues not raised in an alien’s petition for review of a decision by the BIA are deemed abandoned. Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Martinez’s remaining arguments go to the BIA’s alternative holding that he had made an inadequate showing th a t he is entitled to asylum and withholding of removal; he conten d s a l s o that the BIA failed to explain adequately its reasons f o r d enying relief. The BIA’s reasons provided an adequate basis for th i s c o u rt ’s review. See Hernandez-Cordero v. USINS, 819 F.2d 558, 563 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc). Because Martinez has not shown that the BIA abused its dis c r e tion in determining that his motion to reopen was

u nt i m ely, we have not considered whether the BIA abused its discretio n i n determining that Martinez had not made a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Choudhury v. Holder , 418 F. App’x 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2011)(unpublished). The petition for review is DENIED.

2 Case: 11-60012 Document: 00511663386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/11/2011