Case Name: Nery Rolando SANCHEZ MENDOZA, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-24
Citations: 242 F. App'x 988
Docket Number: No. 06-61110
Parties: Nery Rolando SANCHEZ MENDOZA, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 988–989

Head Matter:
Nery Rolando SANCHEZ MENDOZA, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-61110
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 24, 2007.
Daniel Perez-Garcia, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Edward C. Durant, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, U.S. Department of Justice, Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nery Rolando Sanchez Mendoza, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal, pursuant to denying his motion to remand the removal proceedings to the immigra tion judge (IJ). The BIA agreed with the IJ that Sanchez had waived his opportunity to file an application for cancellation of removal.
BIA rulings denying motions to remand are reviewed under a "highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard". Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005) (citing Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir.2000)). Under this standard, a BIA decision must be upheld "so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach". Id. at 304 (quoting Pritchett v. I.N.S., 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir.1993)).
Sanchez wholly fails to address the BIA's ruling: pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(b) and (c), Sanchez was required to submit a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) receipt for payment of required fees with his application for cancellation of removal; the receipt had to be submitted before the deadline imposed by the IJ; and, because Sanchez did not file a DHS receipt before the deadline, the IJ properly deemed his application abandoned. Sanchez concedes he did not produce a DHS receipt before .the deadline, but claims his application was nevertheless timely. Because Sanchez fails, however, to address the bases of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal and denial of remand, he has abandoned any contention that challenges the BIA's decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003).
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.