
    Emilio RODRIGUEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-60843
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 8, 2007.
    Yalila Estela Guerrero, Guerrero & Big-gar, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Linda Susan Wendtland, John Clifford Cunningham, Holly Michele Smith, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Peter D. Keisler, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Trey Lund, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Emilio Rodriguez-Hernandez petitions this court for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision granting the respondent’s motion to pretermit Rodriguez-Hernandez’s request for a waiver of removal pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) and ordering Rodriguez-Hernandez removed from the United States. Rodriguez-Hernandez contends that the BIA erred by determining that he was ineligible for relief pursuant to § 1182(c). The respondent moves for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, an extension of time to file a brief.

Rodriguez-Hernandez has not shown error in connection with the BIA’s determination that he had failed to establish his status as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See INS v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 188 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. 584, 78 L.Ed.2d 401 (1984). He has concomitantly failed to carry his burden of showing that he is eligible for relief under former § 1182(c). See Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 363, 366-70 (5th Cir.2007); see also Ashby v. INS, 961 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir.1992). Rodriguez-Hernandez’s petition for review is DENIED. The respondent’s motion is likewise 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     