Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-60262/USCOURTS-ca5-24-60262-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General
Respondent
Luis Angel Trujillo-Perez
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 24-60262 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

Luis Angel Trujillo-Perez, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________ 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

Agency No. A076 990 998 

______________________________ 

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Luis Angel Trujillo-Perez, federal prisoner # 02419-506, a native and 

citizen of Cuba, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge 

denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his request to terminate 

proceedings and ordering him removed. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

December 11, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 24-60262 Document: 55-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2024
No. 24-60262 

2 

The denial of a motion to terminate is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. Alvarado-Ruiz v. Garland, No. 22-60240, 2023 WL 1965432, 1 

(5th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023) (unpublished); Guardado-Guardado v. Garland, No. 

22-60103, 2023 WL 1433612, 1 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) (unpublished); 

Velasquez v. Gonzales, 239 F. App’x 68, 69 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing Gottesman 

v. INS, 33 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir. 1994)).1

 Under this standard, we will affirm 

unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather 

than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Nguhlefeh Njilefac v. 

Garland, 992 F.3d 362, 365 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Motions to reconsider are reviewed under this same 

standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017). 

Trujillo-Perez has not met this standard. As the BIA explained, his 18 

U.S.C. § 2252 conviction rendered him removable because it is listed as a 

qualifying offense in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(I) and 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and his arguments concerning generic elements of an 

offense are misplaced. Because this determination is a sufficient basis for 

removability, there is no need to consider his arguments concerning 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 239-40 (5th Cir. 

2021); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Because “there 

can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” see Groendyke 

Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion for 

summary disposition is GRANTED, and the petition for review is 

DENIED. 

_____________________ 

1 See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (explaining that 

unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not binding precedent but may 

be persuasive authority); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 

Case: 24-60262 Document: 55-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2024