404 F. App'x 899
5th Cir.
2010

Juan Hernan CONTRERAS, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-60880

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2010.

399 Fed. Appx. 899

fits is supported by substantial evidence and is not an abuse of discretion. We AFFIRM.

Summary Calendar.

Marc Seguinot, Esq., Seguinot & Associates, P.C., Dunn Loring, VA, for Petitioner.

Trish A. Maskew, Esq., Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Hernan Contreras, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (the Board‘s) decision denying his motion to reconsider. Contreras‘s motion to reconsider was filed after the Board‘s August 10, 2009 dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration Judge‘s (IJ‘s) denial of his motion to reopen his 1995 deportation proceedings. Contreras did not file a petition for review of the Board‘s August 10, 2009 dismissal of his appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir.2006). Therefore, that decision became final. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 388-90, 394-95 (1995). Nevertheless, the arguments in Contreras‘s brief are all aimed at challenging the August 10, 2009 dismissal and the IJ‘s denial of his motion to reopen. Absent a timely petition for review of the August 10, 2009 order, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Contreras‘s claims. See Stone, 514 U.S. at 394-95.

Although Contreras raised the issue of venue in his motion to reconsider, he does not make any arguments relating to venue. He has therefore abandoned the only issue before this court. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Contreras‘s petition for review is therefore DENIED.

Notes

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Read the detailed case summary