Manrique-Solano v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-61098
Summary Calendar
BLANCA VICTORIA MANRIQUE-SOLANO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A29 934 433
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
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

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60035
-2-
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.

-- 2 of 2 --