Lopez-Bautista 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
April 22, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60470
Summary Calendar
ANTONINO LOPEZ-BAUTISTA, also known as,
FLORENCIO HERNANDEZ-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A76 805 801
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antonio Lopez-Bautista, a/k/a Florencio Hernandez-Sanchez,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen his immigration
proceedings. Lopez-Bautista does not challenge the BIA’s ruling
that the motion to reopen was untimely or that it lacked
jurisdiction to act on the motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60470
-2-
§§ 1003.23(b) and 1003.2(d) in light of his departure from the
United States. He has therefore waived these issues. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).
Lopez-Bautista instead argues that his motion to reopen
should have been granted because the April 1, 1998, removal order
was improvidently granted. Because Lopez-Bautista did not raise
this argument before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review it.
Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). Given the
foregoing, the petition for review is DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION AND DENIED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --