IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60818

Summary Calendar

SMIT PATEL,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A201 296 740

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Smit Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s 

(IJ) denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. He claims: the IJ 

and the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to reopen his 

immigration proceedings sua sponte; and these refusals are reviewable because 

they were based on determinations that the IJ and BIA lacked jurisdiction over 

 

* 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 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60818 Document: 00515263905 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
No. 18-60818

2

his pending U-visa petition (nonimmigrant visa for victims of certain crimes, 

committed in the United States, who have suffered mental or physical abuse 

and are helpful to investigation or prosecution of criminal activity, see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1101(a)(15)(U)). 

Where, as in this instance, the BIA’s decision relies on reasoning 

provided in the IJ’s decision, both are reviewed. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 

593 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Questions of law are reviewed de novo; 

factual findings, for substantial evidence. Id. at 594 (citation omitted). 

In 2011, Patel was ordered removed in absentia. His 2018 motion to 

reopen his case requested the IJ do so sua sponte and administratively close 

removal proceedings against him, pending the United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ (USCIS) decision on his U-visa petition. 

An IJ may, at any time, sua sponte reopen removal proceedings in which 

the IJ has rendered a decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). Whether to do so 

is within the IJ’s “complete discretion”. Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 

302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted) (noting provision gives BIA same 

complete discretion), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 677 (2018). Because there is no 

legal standard governing the IJ’s exercise of this discretion, our court lacks

jurisdiction to review challenges to the refusal to reopen proceedings sua 

sponte. Id. (citation omitted).

Our court has jurisdiction to review the decision that a “legal barrier”

prevents the exercise of this discretion, Rodriguez-Saragosa v. Sessions, 904 

F.3d 349, 355 (5th Cir. 2018); but, contrary to Patel’s claims, no such barrier 

existed in this instance. The IJ and BIA noted USCIS has sole jurisdiction 

over U-visa applications; they did not conclude, however, that this barred their

exercising discretion to reopen Patel’s immigration proceedings sua sponte. 

Both instead considered whether reopening sua sponte was warranted, and 

 Case: 18-60818 Document: 00515263905 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2020
No. 18-60818

3

concluded it was not. In short, our court lacks jurisdiction to review this 

decision. See Gonzalez-Cantu, 866 F.3d at 306 (citation omitted). 

DISMISSED.

 Case: 18-60818 Document: 00515263905 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2020