### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60796 Summary Calendar

MARCELO SEIXAS DE CASTRO , Petitioner

v.
JEFF ERSON B. SESSIONS , III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL , Respondent

Petition s 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) dismiss ing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) den ying 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, d e Castro was removed in August

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4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: 06/19/2017N o. 15

- 60796

2 2004. He re
- entered without permission that October . In 2012 , the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served him with a n otice of i ntent 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. )
U pon receipt of DHS’ n otice of i ntent, d e 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.
F inal 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 fi nal order of removal which we also have jurisdiction to review. See Ojeda

- Terrazas v. Ashcroft , 290 F.3d 292, 294

– 95 (5th Cir. 2002). T he denial of a motion to

reopen is reviewed “under a highly deferenti al 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 illegall y 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 eligibl e and may not apply for any relief under this chapter, and the alien shall be removed under the prior orde r at any time after the reentry ”

. Id. As discussed supra , D e Castro illegally reentered the United States after removal , and DHS reinstated the original 2004 removal order. D e Castro fails to show the BIA abused its discretion in Case: 15-60796 Document: 00514038282 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2017N o. 15

- 60796

3 concluding his motion to reopen was barred by § 1231(a)(5). See Barri o s , 772 F.3d at 1021. Because § 1231(a)(5) likewise bars “any relief” und er the provisions of that chapter, d e 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