United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60178

Summary Calendar

Abiezer Ornan Melgar-Lara, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A077 693 528

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Abiezer Ornan Melgar-Lara, a native and citizen of Honduras, timely 

petitions us for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision

denying his motion to reopen. He entered the United States in 1999 and was 

ordered removed in absentia in 2000, but moved to reopen his case in 2020. 

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60178 Document: 00516697564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-60178

2

Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 

496 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this court reviews the denial of a motion 

to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Id. This 

standard requires a ruling to stand, even if this court concludes that it is 

erroneous, “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without 

foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather 

than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 

F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We do not find that Melgar-Lara’s motion should have been 

considered because of any issues with the Notice to Appear or notice of his 

removal hearing. The record reflects that he did not keep the immigration 

court informed about his address, as is his duty. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 

560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009); Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 

199, 205 (5th Cir. 2017). He therefore waived his right to notice. See SpagnolBastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2021).1

Further, we do not find that Melgar-Lara’s motion should have been 

considered because of a change in country conditions. His affidavit indicates

that he fled to the United State in 1999 based on fear of death from gang 

violence, so we do not accept his argument that gang violence was not a 

serious issue at that time.

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments regarding his 

unexhausted argument that his proceedings should be reopened due to 

exceptional circumstances, see Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th 

1

 Melgar-Lara provided an address in Florida despite the fact that he was living in 

Pennsylvania. The notices sent to the Florida address contained a scrivener error, which 

he protests. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that irrelevant because Melgar-Lara never 

gave his proper address. He has not explained why he gave the Florida address and who 

lived there, so he has not established an error by the IJ adopted by the BIA.

Case: 22-60178 Document: 00516697564 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-60178

3

Cir. 2001), and his argument regarding sua sponte reopening. See 

Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006).

DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 

Case: 22-60178 Document: 00516697564 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2023