Case Name: Tsehay Hayle EYOB, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-24
Citations: 119 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 03-61036
Parties: Tsehay Hayle EYOB, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
Tsehay Hayle EYOB, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-61036.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 24, 2005.
Tsehay Hayle Eyob, Seattle, WA, pro se.
David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Caryl G. Thompson, Houston, TX, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tsehay Hayle Eyob has filed a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion for reconsideration of its previous decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status. Eyob contends that the BIA erred in denying her motion because (1) she was still statutorily eligible for adjustment of status as her voluntary-departure period had not expired; and (2) the BIA incorrectly construed the evidence submitted with her motion for reconsideration as a second motion to reopen.
Eyob has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings. See Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1141 (5th Cir.1984). Nor has Eyob shown that the BIA erred by construing the evidence she submitted with her motion for reconsideration as a second motion to reopen. Accordingly, the petition for review of the BIA's decision is DENIED. Eyob's motions for stays of deportation and voluntary departure are also 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.