Case Name: Blanca Victoria MANRIQUE-SOLANO, 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: 2006-01-11
Citations: 163 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 04-61098
Parties: Blanca Victoria MANRIQUE-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Blanca Victoria MANRIQUE-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-61098.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 11, 2006.
Jorge Guttlein, Aranda & Guttlein, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Washington, DC, Luis Garcia, El Paso, TX, Alberto R. Gonzales, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, Barry Joseph Pettinato, Washington, DC.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Appellant, Blanca Victoria Manrique-Solano, is a citizen and native of Peru. She petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ordering her deported to Peru.
Manrique-Solano argues that the BIA hearing in absentia at which she was ordered deported violates her due process because she did not receive adequate notice. Notice was sent to the appellant's last known address six weeks after she had been released on her own recognizance by the INS. The release was conditioned on an agreement to appear in court within two weeks and to provide a valid mailing address. The appellant claims that there is no evidence that the address of record was valid or that it. was provided by her. Even assuming the address was invalid, the appellant was required under the release order to provide a valid address and a failure to do so eliminates any claims that notice was inadequate. United States v. Estrada-Trochez, 66 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir.1995). The appellant also contests the denial by the immigration judge of a motion to re-open on June 16, 2003. The immigration judge did not abuse its discretion in holding that the motion was barred as only one motion to reopen is permissible. INA § 240(c)(6)(A).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.