[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12003

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JULIO RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A097-664-917

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 1 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12003

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Julio Marcelino Rodriguez-Martinez1 (“Petitioner”), a native 

and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the 

Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen and to rescind an order of removal issued in absentia.2 We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in 

August 2002. In February 2004, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging Petitioner as removable for being present in the United States without 

having been admitted or paroled. The NTA ordered Petitioner to 

appear before an IJ in Orlando, Florida at a date and time to be set. 

About two weeks later, the immigration court mailed Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, giving notice that a master hearing before the immigration court was scheduled for 11 August 2004. A 

second Notice of Hearing was later mailed rescheduling the master 

hearing for 1 September 2004. 

1 Petitioner says his real name is Victor Vinicio Valdez Avila. For purposes of 

this appeal, we refer to him as “Petitioner.” 

2 The IJ also denied as moot Petitioner’s motion for change of venue. That 

ruling is not before us on appeal.

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 2 of 6
22-12003 Opinion of the Court 3

Petitioner failed to appear at the 1 September hearing. The 

IJ conducted the hearing in absentia and ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. 

In March 2020 -- more than 15 years after he was ordered 

removed -- Petitioner (through his lawyer) moved to reopen the 

proceedings and to rescind the IJ’s in absentia order. Petitioner argued that his removal proceedings should be reopened based on 

two grounds: (1) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) because he did 

not receive proper notice of the hearing; and (2) based on the IJ’s 

sua sponte authority. In support of his lack-of-notice argument, 

Petitioner asserted that the NTA was defective because it specified 

no date and time for his hearing and, on top of that, he never received a Notice of Hearing. 

The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The IJ first determined that Petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to 

demonstrate a lack of proper notice. Second, the IJ determined that 

Petitioner had shown no “extraordinary circumstances” that would 

justify equitably tolling the statutory deadline for filing a motion to 

reopen.3 Third, the IJ declined to exercise its sua sponte authority: 

the IJ concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a “truly exceptional situation” or a substantial likelihood of a different result. 

3 A noncitizen seeking to rescind an order of removal entered in absentia must 

file a motion to reopen “within 180 days after the date of the order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 3 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12003

Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In his counseled brief before the BIA, Petitioner argued that the IJ failed to 

consider adequately “several exceptional factors” in declining to exercise its sua sponte authority. Petitioner presented no discrete argument challenging the IJ’s rulings about lack of proper notice or 

about equitable tolling. 

The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. 

We review de novo our subject-matter jurisdiction. See Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). We 

have no jurisdiction to review a final order of removal unless the 

petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies. Id. (citing 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).

To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must have raised before the 

BIA the “core issue” on appeal and “set out any discrete arguments 

he relies on in support of that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 

F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). “Unadorned, conclusory statements 

do not satisfy this requirement, and the petitioner must do more 

than make a passing reference to the issue.” Id. (quotations omitted). While a petitioner is not required to “use precise legal terminology or provide well-developed arguments to support his claim,” 

he must “provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Id. (quotation omitted).

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 4 of 6
22-12003 Opinion of the Court 5

On appeal, Petitioner raises two arguments, each of which 

focuses on a supposed lack of proper notice.4 Petitioner first contends that his NTA was defective under Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 

S. Ct. 1474 (2021), because it failed to specify the time and place of 

his hearing. Second, Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to consider adequately the evidence showing that he never received a Notice of Hearing. 

In his brief to the BIA, Petitioner argued chiefly that the IJ 

erred in declining to reopen his proceedings under her sua sponte

authority. Petitioner made no discrete argument asserting a lack 

of proper notice. As a result, we have no jurisdiction to consider 

Petitioner’s lack-of-notice arguments on appeal. See Jeune, 810 

F.3d at 800. To the extent the BIA did review sua sponte the IJ’s 

conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a lack of proper 

notice, the BIA’s voluntary act does not change our conclusion 

about what was put to the BIA by Petitioner and about the scope 

of our jurisdiction. See Amaya-Argunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 

F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Because Petitioner raises only non-exhausted arguments in 

his petition, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

4 In his appellate brief, Petitioner presents no argument challenging the denial

of relief based on equitable tolling or based on the IJ’s sua sponte authority; 

those arguments are not before us. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 

1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on 

an issue, that issue is abandoned.”). 

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 5 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-12003

PETITION DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 22-12003 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 05/19/2023 Page: 6 of 6