Case Name: Israel VASQUEZ-BARRON, also known as Israel Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-18
Citations: 314 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 08-60181
Parties: Israel VASQUEZ-BARRON, also known as Israel Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Judges: Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 314
Pages: 738–738

Head Matter:
Israel VASQUEZ-BARRON, also known as Israel Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
No. 08-60181
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 18, 2009.
Fred A. Kowalski, Law Office of Fred A. Kowalski, Brownsville, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, Luis Enrique Perez, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Robert Avila, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Huntsville, TX, for Respondent.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Israel Vasquez-Barron (Vasquez) petitions this court for review of the refusal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte. Vasquez challenges the BIA's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings because Vasquez had already been deported. Vasquez's attempt to have his removal proceedings reopened is foreclosed by Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 675-76 (5th Cir.2003), where we upheld the BIA's interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) (formerly 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(d)) as removing the BIA's jurisdiction to reopen the removal proceedings of a deported alien. In any event, Vasquez's underlying claim based on INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001), was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(h).
The petition for review is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.