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. 08-60940

Summary Calendar

ABEL FLORES-ORDONES,

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. A200 027 333

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Abel Flores-Ordones petitions this court for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration

judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen and to rescind the in absentia order of

removal. Flores-Ordones does not challenge the BIA’s finding that the notice of

the removal hearing was proper because Flores-Ordones was personally served

with the notice to appear, which apprised him of the consequences of his failure

to appear and the necessity for him to provide a change of address form to the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 5, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60940

2

court, that Flores-Ordones failed to provide a new address to the immigration

court when he left Texas to move to California, and that the notice of the

removal hearing was properly mailed to the Texas address Flores-Ordones

provided to the Government. Accordingly, he has abandoned these issues. See

United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006). Flores-Ordones has

also abandoned by failing to adequately brief any argument regarding the

service of his notice of hearing. Id. To the extent Flores-Ordones attempts to

argue that the failure to receive notice of a removal hearing always entitles him

to a rescission of that order, such an argument is foreclosed by Gomez-Palacios

v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2007). 

Flores-Ordones challenges the BIA’s finding that he failed to support his

claim that illness prevented him from attending his removal hearing. However,

as the BIA concluded, the record does not contain any evidence corroborating

Flores-Ordones claim of illness. 

Flores-Ordones also argues that the Government sent him mixed signals

regarding whether the Government would agree not to oppose his motion to

reopen. However, he does not challenge the BIA’s finding that the record does

not contain any evidence of an agreement by the Government not to oppose the

motion. 

In reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen, this court applies a highly

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, regardless of the basis of the alien’s

request for relief. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, this court must affirm the BIA’s decision as long as it is not

capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it

is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach. See

Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006).

While questions of law are reviewed de novo, this court accords deference

to the BIA’s interpretation of immigration statutes unless the record reveals

compelling evidence that the BIA’s interpretation is incorrect. Mikhael v. INS,
No. 08-60940

3

115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed under

the substantial-evidence test, meaning that this court may not overturn the

BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chun

v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). This court reviews the order of the BIA

and will consider the underlying decision of the IJ only if it influenced the

determination of the BIA. See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341, 348

(5th Cir. 2002).

Flores-Ordones has not established that the BIA abused its discretion by

denying his appeal. Accordingly, his petition for review is DENIED. FloresOrdones’s motion to remand is also DENIED.