IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60860

Summary Calendar

MARIA ROMELIA SURIANO-LAINE,

Petitioner

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 114 927

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Romelia Suriano-Laine petitions for review of the order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her appeal from the order of the

immigration judge (IJ) denying her motion to reopen and rescind her in 

absentia removal order, in which she asserted that she had not received proper

notice of her removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s decision under a 

deferential abuse of discretion standard, overturning only if it was not 

 

* 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

January 10, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60860 Document: 00514789745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2019
No. 17-60860

2

“capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that 

it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” 

Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

Suriano-Laine asserts that she is illiterate and therefore the notice to 

appear did not provide actual notice of the date and time of her removal 

proceeding or of the consequences of failing to appear. She also argues that, 

given her illiteracy, she was mentally incompetent and therefore entitled to 

“adequate safeguards” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(3). Even if illiteracy 

constitutes mental incompetence for purposes of § 1229a(b)(3), the only proof 

of illiteracy is counsel’s conclusory assertion, proffered for the first time in the 

brief to the BIA challenging the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen. 

Accepting Suriano-Laine’s uncorroborated assertion that she was 

effectively unable to read or write in English, rendering the written notice

insufficient to put her on actual notice, she makes no claim that she was unable 

to understand spoken Spanish, the language in which the Border Patrol agent 

explained the notice to her. Furthermore, 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) and (b)(1) do 

not require notice in the alien’s native language. Suriano-Laine’s presumptive 

understanding of the notice to appear is evidenced by her signature and 

fingerprint on the service certificate. The record further establishes that 

Suriano-Laine was advised orally in Spanish that the failure to report for her 

immigration hearing might result in her deportation in absentia and that 

Suriano-Laine stated that she understood what was explained to her. 

Suriano-Laine has not demonstrated that the denial of her motion to 

reopen constituted an abuse of discretion. See Hernandez-Castillo, 875 F.3d at 

203. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 17-60860 Document: 00514789745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2019