Case Name: Antonino LOPEZ-BAUTISTA, also known as, Florencio Hernandez-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-22
Citations: 126 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 04-60470
Parties: Antonino LOPEZ-BAUTISTA, also known as, Florencio Hernandez-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Antonino LOPEZ-BAUTISTA, also known as, Florencio Hernandez-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-60470.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 22, 2005.
Ivan F. Torres Hidalgo Gato, Law Office of Eduardo Soto, Coral Gables, FL, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Lopez-Bautista, a/k/a Florencio Hernandez-Sanchez, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Lopez-Bautista does not challenge the BIA's ruling that the motion to reopen was untimely or that it lacked jurisdiction to act on the motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) and 1003.2(d) in light of his departure from the United States. He has therefore waived these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Lopez-Bautista instead argues that his motion to reopen should have been granted because the April 1, 1998, removal order was improvidently granted. Because Lopez-Bautista did not raise this argument before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir.2001). Given the foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DENIED IN PART.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.