United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60649

Summary Calendar

____________

Jenny Elizabeth Gonzalez-Luna, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A088 019 602

______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Jenny Elizabeth Gonzalez-Luna, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 

dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying 

her motion to reopen. We review the BIA’s decision and consider that of the 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60649 Document: 00516776027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
No. 22-60649

2

IJ only insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 

(5th Cir. 2018). 

Because motions to reopen are “disfavored,” the denial of such a 

motion is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard.” Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard requires a 

ruling to stand so long as “it is not capricious, without foundation in the 

evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result 

of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Gonzalez-Luna has not met this standard.

Gonzalez-Luna’s argument that her notice to appear (NTA) was 

defective, and thus did not establish jurisdiction over her proceedings 

because the initial NTA did not include the time and date of her hearing, is 

unavailing. See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). 

Her related challenge to the BIA’s rejection of her equitable tolling argument 

likewise lacks merit. See id. Insofar as she argues that the 90-day deadline 

was inapplicable because she was challenging jurisdiction, this argument fails

because this court has rejected the proposition that a jurisdictional claim 

regarding a defective NTA may be raised at any time. See Flores-Abarca v. 

Barr, 937 F.3d 473, 477–78 (5th Cir. 2019).

We lack jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s decision 

not to exercise its discretion sua sponte to reopen the proceedings. See 

Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017). Finally, her 

due process argument fails because she has no liberty interest in reopening, 

which is a discretionary form of relief. See id. at 205–06. Moreover, she has 

not shown that the lack of a hearing date in the initial NTA prejudiced her

because her argument that the allegedly defective NTA deprived the 

immigration court of jurisdiction over her proceedings is, as explained earlier, 

Case: 22-60649 Document: 00516776027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2023
No. 22-60649

3

unavailing. See Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 & n.2; Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 

F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).

The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in 

part for want of jurisdiction.

Case: 22-60649 Document: 00516776027 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/06/2023