United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60194

Summary Calendar

____________

Andreia Sousa-Santos, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A098 592 886

______________________________

Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Andreia Sousa-Santos, appearing pro se, is a native and citizen of 

Brazil. She petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) denial of her motion for reconsideration of her first motion to 

reopen and the denial of her second motion to reopen. She was ordered 

removed in absentia in 2004. In 2019, she filed her first motion to reopen on 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 9, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60194 Document: 00516640975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 22-60194

2

the grounds that she was seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on 

changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 

We review de novo “the legal question of our own jurisdiction.” 

Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021). Because SousaSantos did not file a separate petition for review of the dismissal of her appeal 

from the immigration judge’s denial of her first motion to reopen, we lack 

jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 

F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that “the BIA’s denial of an appeal and 

its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of 

which require their own petitions for review”)(quotation marks and citations 

omitted). To the extent that Sousa-Santos is challenging the BIA’s 

discretionary denial of sua sponte relief with respect to her second motion to 

reopen, we similarly lack jurisdiction to review it. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. 

Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2017) (“we cannot consider the 

BIA’s or the [immigration judge’s] refusal to reopen sua sponte”). Relatedly, 

to the extent that Sousa-Santos is challenging the denial of her motion for 

statutory reopening pursuant to Section 1229a(c)(7), she cannot prevail 

because she is number-barred, as this is her second motion to reopen. See § 

1229a(c)(7)(A) (“[a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings under 

this section”); see also Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2022). 

“We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under a 

highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 

F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). Here, Sousa-Santos has failed to identify a 

change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that 

the BIA overlooked in finding that she did not establish a change in country 

conditions because she failed to present evidence of Brazil’s country 

conditions at the time of her 2004 removal order. See id.; Nunez v. Sessions, 

882 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2018). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion 

Case: 22-60194 Document: 00516640975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2023
No. 22-60194

3

in denying her motion for reconsideration of her first motion to reopen. To 

the extent that Sousa-Santos raises the procedural argument that the BIA 

erroneously used a single-member panel, rather than one with three

members, to hear her motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to 

reach that issue because it concerns the BIA’s unreviewable discretionary 

decision. See Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 691 (5th Cir. 2009). 

Finally, Sousa-Santos has abandoned her issues related to credibility, 

exceptional circumstances, and summary dismissal due to her failure to brief

them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Rui 

Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 589 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that while we will 

liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants and apply a less stringent 

standard to them, pro se litigants “must still brief the issues”) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Accordingly, Sousa-Santos’s petition for review is DISMISSED in 

part and DENIED in part. 

Case: 22-60194 Document: 00516640975 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2023