
    Eduardo Alfredo TALLEDO-ACOSTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-60707.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 2, 2006.
    Renata Anna Pilny, Marcia S Kasdan & Associates, Hackensack, NJ, for Petitioner.
    Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Jennifer Jeanette Keeney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Cindy S. Ferrier, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, Joe A. Aguilar, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Alfredo Talledo-Acosta seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial as untimely of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Talledo-Acosta asserts that the denial of his motion to reopen was a violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights because he has never been granted an opportunity to present evidence on behalf of his application for adjustment of status, which is based on a 1995-approved 1-140 immigrant worker visa petition filed by his prospective employer.

The decision to reopen proceedings is a discretionary decision, and this court applies a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Talledo-Acosta does not challenge the BIA’s ruling that his motion to reopen his 1986 deportation proceedings was untimely filed. Thus, any challenge to the timeliness of his motion to reopen is deemed abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Because there is no protected liberty interest in a motion to reopen, Talledo-Acosta cannot establish a due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. See Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir.2006).

Accordingly, Talledo-Acosta’s 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     