Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60218/USCOURTS-ca5-14-60218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elvis Steve Barillas-Rivera
Petitioner
Eric H. Holder, Jr., U. S. Attorney General
Respondent

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60218

Summary Calendar

ELVIS STEVE BARILLAS-RIVERA,

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A070 618 681

Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elvis Steve Barillas-Rivera is a native and citizen of Guatemala who 

became a lawful permanent resident in this country in 2002. In July 2009, 

Barillas-Rivera was convicted of a state controlled-substance offense, and he 

was later found to be deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). He applied 

for relief in the forms of cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of 

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60218 Document: 00512895726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2015
No. 14-60218

immigration judge (IJ) determined that another of Barillas-Rivera’s prior 

convictions, a Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation, was an aggravated 

felony that precluded Barillas-Rivera from establishing his eligibility for 

cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal. The IJ thus 

pretermitted cancellation of those applications and, after receiving evidence, 

he denied the request for protection under the CAT. Barillas-Rivera appealed, 

but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. BarillasRivera filed an emergency motion to reconsider, which the BIA construed as a 

motion to reopen and denied. He then filed another motion to reopen, which 

was also denied by the BIA.

Barillas-Rivera’s petition for review was timely only as to the BIA’s 

March 2014 decision denying his second motion to reopen, see NavarroMiranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003), and only that decision 

is properly before us, see Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394, 401-06 (1995); 

Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 76 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus, we lack 

jurisdiction over the instant petition for review to the extent that it alleges any 

claim of error with respect to the BIA’s December 2013 dismissal of BarillasRivera’s appeal or its January 2014 denial of his first motion to reopen.

Because Barillas-Rivera was ordered deported due to a controlledsubstance offense, we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of his motion 

to reopen only on legal or constitutional grounds. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), 

(a)(2)(D); Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-20 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Barillas-Rivera’s challenge to the BIA’s denial of his second motion to reopen 

is exceedingly brief and consists of his characterization of the BIA’s findings 

regarding the evidence he sought to submit as arbitrary and irrational. He has 

not made any cogent legal or constitutional challenge to the BIA’s decision, and 

2

 Case: 14-60218 Document: 00512895726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2015
No. 14-60218

we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider his argument. See § 1252(a)(2)(C), 

(a)(2)(D).

Accordingly, Barillas-Rivera’s PETITION FOR REVIEW is DISMISSED 

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

3

 Case: 14-60218 Document: 00512895726 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/09/2015