IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60796

Summary Calendar

MARCELO SEIXAS DE CASTRO,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A098 284 401

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcelo Seixas de Castro, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying his motion to reopen. De Castro entered the 

United States unlawfully in May 2004. He was apprehended at a Houston 

checkpoint, and claims no one spoke to him in Portuguese or provided a 

translator. After being detained two months, de Castro was removed in August 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 19, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60796 Document: 00514038282 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2017
No. 15-60796

2

2004. He re-entered without permission that October. In 2012, the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served him with a notice of intent to

reinstate the 2004 removal order. (De Castro asserts he came to the United 

States both times to flee persecution from criminal organizations and corrupt 

police officers.) 

Upon receipt of DHS’ notice of intent, de Castro filed, inter alia, motions 

to reopen his 2004 removal proceedings; the IJ, however, denied his motions 

holding, because de Castro reentered illegally after the original removal order, 

he had no right to a hearing before the IJ and no right to reopen. The BIA 

affirmed.

Final orders of removal are reviewed under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), which

“encompasses review of decisions refusing to reopen or reconsider such orders”. 

Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154 (2015). A valid reinstatement is a final 

order of removal which we also have jurisdiction to review. See Ojeda-Terrazas 

v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 292, 294–95 (5th Cir. 2002). The denial of a motion to 

reopen is reviewed “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. 

Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Zhao 

v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005)).

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that, if “an alien has 

reentered the United States illegally after having been removed . . . the prior 

order of removal is reinstated from its original date”. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). 

Once DHS reinstates an order of removal, the original order “is not subject to 

being reopened or reviewed, the alien is not eligible and may not apply for any 

relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior order 

at any time after the reentry”. Id. As discussed supra, De Castro illegally 

reentered the United States after removal, and DHS reinstated the original 

2004 removal order. De Castro fails to show the BIA abused its discretion in 

 Case: 15-60796 Document: 00514038282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2017
No. 15-60796

3

concluding his motion to reopen was barred by § 1231(a)(5). See Barrios, 772 

F.3d at 1021. Because § 1231(a)(5) likewise bars “any relief” under the 

provisions of that chapter, de Castro fails to show the BIA erred in failing to 

consider cancellation of removal because he was ineligible for such relief under 

the statute. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 489–90 (5th Cir. 2015).

DENIED.

 Case: 15-60796 Document: 00514038282 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/19/2017