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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-61168

Summary Calendar

REINA MARIBEL SERRANO-PORTILLO; REINA MARINA PALACIOSSERRANO

Petitioners

v.

PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A98-912-040

BIA No. A98-912-041

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The petitioners, Reina Maribel Serrano-Portillo and her minor daughter,

Reina Marino Palacios-Serrano, were ordered removed to El Salvador after

failing to appear at their immigration hearing. They filed a motion to reopen,

arguing that car trouble prevented their appearance. The immigration judge

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-61168

2

(IJ) denied the motion to reopen, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

affirmed the IJ’s order. The petitioners, appearing pro se, have filed a petition

for review, arguing that the IJ erred by failing to grant a motion for change of

venue, to reopen the proceedings when car trouble that was beyond their control

prevented their attendance, and, in their reply brief, they argue that a change

of circumstances in El Salvador will cause their lives to be at risk if they are

forced to return.

As the petitioners fail to explain in a coherent fashion why they had “good

cause” for a change of venue, they have failed to demonstrate error in the IJ’s

decision to deny their motion for change of venue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b); In

re Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 483-84 (BIA 1992). Additionally, the

petitioners’ argument regarding changed country circumstances is raised before

this court for the first time in their reply brief. This court does not consider

arguments that are raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States

v. Brown, 305 F.3d 304, 307 n. 4 (5th Cir.2002). 

The statute in place when the removal proceedings began provided for in

absentia hearings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(b)(5)(A) (2005); Williams-Igwonobe v.

Gonzales, 437 F.3d 453, 455-56 and n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Although the petitioners

state that car trouble prevented their attendance, the petitioners cite no

authority to support their arguments, nor do they provide a coherent argument

discussing the IJ’s analysis. Additionally, the record does not indicate that the

petitioners diligently attempted to contactthe immigration court while they had

car problems, nor does the record indicate that the petitioners diligently

attempted to pursue relief after the removal order was issued. The petitioners

have therefore failed to demonstrate that their failure to attend the hearing was

caused by exceptional circumstances. See De Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 147-

49 (5th Cir. 1997); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) and (c)(7)(e)(1) (2005).

The denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. See De

Morales, 116 F.3d at 147. The petition for review is therefore DENIED.