United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60154

Summary Calendar

Jinete Rosario-Guzman, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A078 910 175

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Petitioner Jinete Rosario-Guzman is a native and citizen of the 

Dominican Republic who was ordered removed in absentia in 2003. She now 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) dismissal 

of her appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of her April 2020 

motion to reopen her removal proceedings. To the extent that her appeal to 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60154 Document: 00516390213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2022
No. 21-60154

2

the BIA contested the IJ’s denial of her motions for a stay of removal and for 

reconsideration of the denial of her prior motion to reopen, Rosario-Guzman 

has abandoned any such challenges by failing to brief them in this review 

proceeding. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). We 

lack jurisdiction to review Rosario-Guzman’s challenge to the agency’s 

refusal to reopen her removal proceedings sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. 

Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017). 

We construe Rosario-Guzman’s brief liberally because she is 

proceeding pro se. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

She arguably asserts that the BIA erred by dismissing her appeal from the IJ’s 

denial of her motion to reopen her removal order under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7). The BIA denied her statutory motion to reopen on the 

grounds that the motion was time barred, number barred, and did not 

establish a material change in country conditions in the Dominican Republic. 

We have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion for statutory reopening,

whether based on untimeliness or other grounds. See Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 

143, 147-48 (2015). 

Motions to reopen a removal order are “disfavored,” and we review 

the BIA’s denial of such motions “under a highly deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 223, 226 (5th 

Cir. 2017) (quoting Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549-50 (5th 

Cir. 2006)). Under this standard, “[t]he BIA ‘abuses its discretion’ when it 

‘issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in 

the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or 

regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations or 

established policies.’” Id. at 227 (quoting Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 

F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014)). 

Case: 21-60154 Document: 00516390213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2022
No. 21-60154

3

Rosario-Guzman has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion 

in concluding that her April 2020 motion to reopen was both untimely and 

number barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i)-(ii); § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 

Mendias-Mendoza, 877 F.3d at 226-27. She has likewise failed to demonstrate 

that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s determination that she 

did not establish the necessary change in country conditions to warrant 

reopening under § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). See Mendias-Mendoza, 877 F.3d at 

226-27. 

Rosario-Guzman’s petition for review is DISMISSED in part and 

DENIED in part. 

Case: 21-60154 Document: 00516390213 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/12/2022