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).

*425 Accordingly, Talledo-Acosta’s petition for review is DENIED.