[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11911

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A088-899-126

MIGUEL VELASQUEZ-AGUILAR, 

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(December 7, 2018)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Miguel Velasquez-Aguilar petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to sua sponte reopen its prior order 

Case: 18-11911 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

declining to reinstate the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) grant of voluntary departure 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(a)(1). Velasquez-Aguilar argues that the BIA abused its 

discretion in refusing to grant his motion because it failed to sufficiently articulate 

its reasoning. Because we lack jurisdiction, Velasquez-Aguilar’s petition for 

review is dismissed. 

We review our own subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). The BIA “may at any 

time reopen . . . on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision,” 

but the decision to reopen “is within the discretion” of the BIA, “even if the party 

moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We lack 

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen pursuant to its sua 

sponte authority. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008). 

This decision is fully committed to the discretion of the BIA by law. Id. at 1293–

94. And without a meaningful statutory standard against which we could judge the 

BIA’s exercise of that discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Id.; Heckler v. 

Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 1655 (1985) (“[R]eview is not to be 

had if the statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard 

against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”).1

 

1 Velasquez-Aguilar argues that we have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010), abrogates our reasoning in Lenis. We disagree. First, 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kucana considered only § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s statutory 

Case: 18-11911 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Although we recognized in Lenis the possibility that we might retain 

jurisdiction to review constitutional claims directed at the BIA’s exercise of its sua 

sponte reopening power, Velasquez-Aguilar has not raised any constitutional 

claims. See Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1294 n.7 (“We note, in passing, that an appellate 

court may have jurisdiction over constitutional claims related to the BIA's decision 

not to exercise its sua sponte power.”). We lack jurisdiction to review 

Velasquez-Aguilar’s claims related to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen sua 

sponte. Accordingly, his petition for review is dismissed. 

PETITION DISMISSED.

 

jurisdictional bar on denials of discretionary relief, and expressly took no opinion on sua sponte

reopening. Kucana, 558 U.S. at 251 n.18. Second, our decision in Lenis is not undercut by 

Kucana because, as we held in Lenis, no meaningful standard exists for courts to conduct a 

review of the BIA’s sua sponte decisions to reopen. That the standardless discretion to sua 

sponte reopen removal proceedings is found in a regulation and not a statute does not change our 

analysis. Accord Neves v. Holder, 613 F.3d 30, 35 (1st Cir. 2010); Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85, 

96 (2d Cir. 2011); Pllumi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 642 F.3d 155, 159 n.6 (3d Cir. 2011); HernandezCastillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206–07 (5th Cir. 2017); Rais v. Holder, 768 F.3d 453, 463–64 

(6th Cir. 2014); Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder, 683 F.3d 369, 372–73 (7th Cir. 2012); Ochoa v. 

Holder, 604 F.3d 546, 559 n.3 (8th Cir. 2010); Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823–

24 (9th Cir. 2011).

Case: 18-11911 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Page: 3 of 3