United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60313

Summary Calendar

____________

Mario Bardales-Gonzalez, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A098 991 584

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Mario Bardales-Gonzales (“Mr. Bardales”), a native and citizen of 

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

dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion 

to reopen.1

 A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly 

_____________________

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

1

 The caption of this case, as well as Mr. Bardales’s own brief before this court, 

incorrectly use “Gonzalez” instead of “Gonzales,” which is the proper spelling of Mr. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60313 Document: 00516718974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-60313

2

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d

955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019). Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the movant 

bears a heavy burden. Gonzales-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 

2017). Findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. 

Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial 

evidence standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence 

“compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. 

On review, Mr. Bardales argues that he did not receive sufficient 

notice of his hearing because he did not receive oral notice in his native 

language. Assuming that the law requires such notice, Mr. Bardales has not 

presented compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could conclude 

that he received oral notice in Spanish. See id. His notice to appear indicated 

that he received oral notice in Spanish, and he attested that immigration 

officials spoke to him in Spanish. 

Next, Mr. Bardales has not pointed to any case law or evidence in the 

record that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that his alleged confusion 

about his duties to attend his removal hearing constitutes exceptional 

circumstances. See Ramos-Portillo, 919 F.3d at 958. He has similarly failed to 

show that his speculation regarding his health issues constitutes exceptional 

circumstances. His argument that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the 

totality of the circumstances similarly lacks merit; the IJ and BIA’s decisions 

reflect meaningful consideration of Mr. Bardales’s exceptional 

circumstances argument and evidence. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I. 

& N. Dec. 318, 321 (BIA 2021); Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585 

_____________________

Bardales’s maternal surname. His brief to the BIA used the correct spelling and then 

referred to him “hereinafter” as “Mr. Bardales;” hence, that is the name this opinion is 

using.

Case: 22-60313 Document: 00516718974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023
No. 22-60313

3

(5th Cir. 1996). It is therefore unnecessary to reach Mr. Bardales’s issue of 

equitable tolling. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a 

general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues 

the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). 

We lack jurisdiction to reach Mr. Bardales’s sua sponte argument. See 

Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that jurisdiction 

is lacking “to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to invoke its sua 

sponte authority to reopen a case because there is no legal standard against 

which to judge that decision” (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted)); Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding 

that we review de novo whether we have jurisdiction). As for Mr. Bardales’s 

due process argument, we have “held that no liberty interest exists in a 

motion to reopen, and therefore due process claims are not cognizable in the 

context of reopening proceedings.” Mejia, 913 F.3d at 490. 

Accordingly, Mr. Bardales’s petition for review is DISMISSED in 

part and DENIED in part. 

Case: 22-60313 Document: 00516718974 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2023