Case Name: Jose Alejandro CANTU, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-20
Citations: 267 F. App'x 321
Docket Number: No. 06-61080
Parties: Jose Alejandro CANTU, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 321–321

Head Matter:
Jose Alejandro CANTU, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-61080
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 20, 2008.
Lawrence Erik Rushton, Bellaire, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, John Clifford Cunningham, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Alejandro Cantu ("Cantu") petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision granting the respondent's motion to pretermit Cantu's request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Cantu removed from the United States. Cantu contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The Respondent moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief. All of Cantu's arguments in support of his petition for review are foreclosed by our precedent. See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363 (5th Cir.2007); Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 869, 871-72 (5th Cir. 2007); Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 308-09 (5th Cir.1999). IT IS ORDERED that the Respondent's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and Cantu's petition for review is DENIED. Respondent's alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED as MOOT.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.