United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60578

Summary Calendar

Jose Fernando Resendez Ramos, also known as Jose Resendes 

Ramos, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 025 367

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Fernando Resendez Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, has 

filed a petition for review, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) order denying his motion to reconsider its decision affirming the denial 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 12, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60578

2

of his motion to terminate the removal proceedings. According to Resendez 

Ramos, the BIA erroneously found that he was conditionally paroled under 

§ 236(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) given the 

record evidence that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intended 

to grant him humanitarian parole under § 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA. Resendez 

Ramos also asks this court to grant him a stay of removal. This court reviews 

the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider “under a highly deferential abuseof-discretion standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Although Resendez Ramos received a Form I-94, which is typically 

provided to aliens granted humanitarian parole, the form “does not contain 

the stamp, as required by regulation, indicating that [Resendez Ramos] was 

granted parole under [§] 212(d)(5)(A)” of the INA. Matter of CastilloPadilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. 257, 262 (BIA 2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(h)(2). 

Instead, the Form I-94 “contains a stamp that explicitly states that [Resendez 

Ramos] was released from custody after posting a [$1,500] bond and appears 

to merely memorialize his release on bond.” Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. 

at 262. Further, “there was no determination that he should be permitted to 

come into the country temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or 

significant public benefit.” Id. at 261; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). “Thus, 

although [Resendez Ramos] did receive a Form I-94, there is no evidence to 

indicate that the Government intended to parole him into the United States 

pursuant to [§] 212(d)(5)(A).” Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 262. Given 

the “highly deferential” standard of review, it cannot be said that the BIA 

abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider after deciding that 

Resendez Ramos’s release from DHS custody pending the resolution of his 

removal proceedings was consistent with conditional parole under § 236(a)

of the INA. See Lowe, 872 F.3d at 715.

Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60578

3

Resendez Ramos also asks this court to grant him a stay of removal. 

Based on the foregoing, however, he has failed to make the requisite “strong 

showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits” to be entitled to a stay of 

the removal proceedings. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).

Resendez Ramos’s petition for review is DENIED. His motion for a 

stay of removal is likewise DENIED.

Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2022