Court Opinion

ID: 9908441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 19:00:52.30356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:12.170492
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60289         Document: 00516995067             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                  December 8, 2023
                                       No. 22-60289                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   Miguel Angel Quintanilla-Benitez,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                     Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A078 550 299
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          In 2000, the Department of Homeland Security ordered Miguel Angel
   Quintanilla-Benitez removed to El Salvador. Quintanilla-Benitez reentered
   the United States illegally, and an immigration officer reinstated his 2000 re-
   moval order on October 13, 2020. After the reinstatement order, Quintanilla-
   Benitez applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Con-
   vention Against Torture (“CAT”). An immigration judge denied his

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60289      Document: 00516995067             Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/08/2023

                                       No. 22-60289

   application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal.
   Quintanilla-Benitez then filed a petition for review in this court.
          Our jurisdiction to review removal decisions is limited to “final
   order[s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see id. § 1252(b)(9). The
   Supreme Court has held orders denying withholding of removal and CAT
   relief are not final removal orders. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1691
   (2020); Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2288 (2021); see also
   Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland, 73 F.4th 300, 302 (5th Cir. 2023). Thus, the
   only proper subject of our review is DHS’s 2020 reinstatement order.
          The reinstatement order became final on the day it issued—October
   13,   2020—notwithstanding           Quintanilla-Benitez’s    application    for
   withholding-only and CAT relief. See Argueta-Hernandez, 73 F.4th at 303
   (noting a reinstatement order is final the moment it issues); id.
   (“[W]ithholding-only proceedings do not impact the finality of an order of
   removal.”). Quintanilla-Benitez did not file his petition for review until May
   13, 2022, well past the 30-day jurisdictional deadline in § 1252. See 8 U.S.C.
   § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days
   after the date of the final order of removal.”); see also Argueta-Hernandez, 73
   F.4th at 302 (explaining the § 1252(b)(1) deadline is “mandatory and
   jurisdictional”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review Quintanilla-
   Benitez’s petition.
                                   *        *         *
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
   jurisdiction.

                                            2