Court Opinion

ID: 9398675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 20:01:50.331286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:35.414221
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-14355   Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023    Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-14355
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       BAOYU ZHANG,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A201-561-567
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-14355         Document: 33-1        Date Filed: 05/31/2023         Page: 2 of 4

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       21-14355

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Baoyu Zhang, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a decision
       of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming and
       adopting the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
       motion to reconsider and reopen his removal proceeding. In his
       petition for review, Zhang argues that the IJ erred in finding that
       he was not entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline to file a
       motion to reopen and by declining to reopen his case sua sponte.
       The government in turn moves for summary disposition, arguing
       that we lack subject-matter jurisdiction over Zhang’s petition
       because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. After
       review, we grant the government’s motion in part and deny it in
       part.
              Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
       as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1
              As an initial matter, the government is correct that we lack
       jurisdiction to review the IJ’s refusal to exercise his sua sponte

       1 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc)
       (holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior
       to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).
USCA11 Case: 21-14355      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       21-14355               Opinion of the Court                          3

       authority to reopen Zhang’s removal proceedings. See Lenis v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining that
       neither the regulation granting the agency discretion to reopen
       proceedings sua sponte, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), nor the statute from
       which that regulation derives, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2), provide any
       “meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise
       of discretion” (quotation omitted)); see also Bing Quan Lin v. U.S.
       Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2018) (“Generally we cannot
       review decisions of the BIA that are committed to its discretion.
       Thus, we have held on several occasions that we lack jurisdiction
       to review a decision of the BIA not to exercise its power to reopen
       a case sua sponte.”). Accordingly, summary disposition is
       appropriate as to this issue. Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1162.
              On the other hand, summary disposition is not appropriate
       as to Zhang’s challenge to the IJ’s equitable tolling determination.
       Section 1252(d)(1) of the Immigration Nationality Act provides, in
       relevant part, that “[a] court may review a final order of removal
       only if—(1) the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies
       available to the alien as of right.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). At the time
       the government filed the motion for summary affirmance, it was
       well-established in this Circuit that § 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion
       requirement was jurisdictional. See Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
       Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). In other words, “[w]e
       lacked jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in a petition for review
       unless the petition ha[d] exhausted his administrative remedies” as
       to that claim. Id. Recently, however, the Supreme Could held that
       the exhaustion requirement in § 1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional.
USCA11 Case: 21-14355     Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 05/31/2023   Page: 4 of 4

       4                     Opinion of the Court                21-14355

       Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, No. 21-1436, 598 U.S. __, 2023 WL
       3356525, at *5–8 (U.S. May 11, 2023). Accordingly, the
       government’s position is not clearly right as a matter of law and
       summary disposition is not appropriate as to this claim.
             Consequently, we GRANT IN PART the government’s
       motion for summary disposition, and we dismiss the portion of
       Zhang’s petition that challenges the IJ’s failure to reopen Zhang’s
       removal proceedings sua sponte. We DENY the motion as it relates
       to Zhang’s challenge to the IJ’s equitable tolling decision.2
            MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION GRANTED
       IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PETITION DISMISSED IN
       PART.

       2The government’s motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED AS
       MOOT.