Filed: May 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 98-60515 Summary Calendar FELIPE DE LEON VALENZUELA, Petitioner, VERSUS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (95C00153) May 26, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felipe DeLeon Valenzuela, petitioner, alleges that the five year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 bars the enforcement of a civil
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 98-60515 Summary Calendar FELIPE DE LEON VALENZUELA, Petitioner, VERSUS OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (95C00153) May 26, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Felipe DeLeon Valenzuela, petitioner, alleges that the five year limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 bars the enforcement of a civil ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 98-60515
Summary Calendar
FELIPE DE LEON VALENZUELA,
Petitioner,
VERSUS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(95C00153)
May 26, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Felipe DeLeon Valenzuela, petitioner, alleges that the five year limitation period in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2462 bars the enforcement of a civil fine and a cease and desist order issued as a result of his
violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324c(a)(2). Valenzuela does not dispute that he committed immigration
document fraud by presenting false immigration documents to improperly obtain employment in the
United States. In addition, it is uncontested that the INS commenced proceedings against Valenzuela
by filing a complaint within five years of the violations. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that
Valenzuela must pay a $250 fine and immediately cease and desist from violating 28 U.S.C. § 1342c
in a final order issued seven years after the violations. We have reviewed the record de novo and
reach the same conclusion for essentially the reasons expressed in the ALJ’s final order. AFFIRMED.
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.