Case ID: f-appx_702/html/0238-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sandra Libai NAJERA-MEJIA, also known as Cheyla Turcios, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent
    No. 16-60704 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed November 17, 2017
    Sandra Libai Najera-Mejia, Pro Se
    John M. McAdams, Jr., U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, David Michael McConnell, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Sandra Libai Najera-Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this court for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings in which she was ordered removed in absentia. Najera-Mejia argues that the BIA failed to consider the exceptional circumstances that warranted reopening of the proceeding.

Due to her failure to brief any challenge to the BIA’s determination that her third motion to reopen was numerically barred from consideration pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), Najera-Mejia has abandoned any such challenge. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)). Additionally, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Najera-Mejia’s challenge to the BIA’s wholly discretionary determination that her ease did not present exceptional circumstances warranting sua sponte reconsideration. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, Najera-Mejia’s petition for review is DISMISSED, in part, for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED, in part. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.