United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-60415

Summary Calendar

Jose Federico Cruz-Sanchez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A098 887 007

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose Federico Cruz-Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) denying his third motion to reopen, as well as dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his second motion to reopen. 

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

September 7, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-60415 Document: 00516463214 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
No. 21-60415

2

When evaluating a denial of a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s 

order but will also evaluate the IJ’s underlying decision to the extent it 

influenced the BIA’s opinion. See Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th 

Cir. 2018). When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, we review the IJ’s 

decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003). A denial of 

a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 

2019). 

Cruz-Sanchez failed to challenge the IJ’s denial of his second motion 

to reopen on grounds that it was numerically barred for all issues except 

changed country conditions. Although we will liberally construe the brief of 

a pro se litigant, such as Cruz-Sanchez, pro se litigants “must still brief the 

issues.” Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 589 (5th Cir. 2011). Thus, he has 

abandoned his challenge to the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen on these 

grounds. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Regarding the BIA’s denial of his third motion to reopen on grounds 

of changed country conditions, Cruz-Sanchez failed to show that the BIA 

abused its discretion because his evidence did not provide a “meaningful 

comparison between the conditions at the time of the removal hearing and 

the conditions at the time” he moved to reopen. See Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508. 

Cruz-Sanchez’s argument that the IJ and BIA violated his due process 

rights lacks merit because “there is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to 

reopen due to the discretionary nature of the relief sought.” HernandezCastillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 205 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). Finally, his argument that the BIA violated his 

due process rights by using its summary affirmance procedure also lacks 

merit because we have foreclosed that issue. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft, 

Case: 21-60415 Document: 00516463214 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2022
No. 21-60415

3

351 F.3d 657, 662-63 n.2 (5th Cir. 2003), abrogated on other grounds by Patel v. 

Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022). 

Accordingly, Cruz-Sanchez’s petition for review is DENIED. 

Case: 21-60415 Document: 00516463214 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/07/2022