Court Opinion

ID: 9377165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 01:00:19.544332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:12.355200
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60316        Document: 00516666873             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/06/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60316
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                                 March 6, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   Fredy Leo Pena-Lopez,                                                             Clerk

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A098 404 574
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Fredy Leo Pena-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
   for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
   his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind an in absentia
   removal order.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60316      Document: 00516666873          Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/06/2023

                                    No. 22-60316

          “Motions to reopen removal proceedings are disfavored.” Mauricio-
   Benitez v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018). The denial of a motion
   to reopen is reviewed “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
   standard.” Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, this court will
   affirm the BIA’s decision unless it is “capricious, irrational, utterly without
   foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of
   statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from regulations
   or established policies.” Id.
          Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland,
   141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), Pena-Lopez argues that he did not receive proper
   statutory notice because his Notice to Appear (NTA) did not list a time or
   date for his removal hearing. The Government responds that Pena-Lopez
   was not entitled to recission of his removal order based on Niz-Chavez
   because he forfeited his right to written notice when he failed to provide the
   immigration court with a valid mailing address.
          The Supreme Court held in Niz-Chavez that 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)’s
   written notice requirements must be provided in a single document to trigger
   the stop-time rule. 141 S. Ct. at 1480. This court has since held that Niz-
   Chavez’s interpretation of § 1229(a)’s notice requirements “applies in the in
   absentia context.” Rodriguez v. Garland, 15 F.4th 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2021).
          The BIA acknowledged Rodriguez in its decision denying Pena-
   Lopez’s motion to reopen, but it found that Rodriguez did not dispose of the
   case. Instead, the BIA relied on Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802 (5th
   Cir. 2021), and found that Pena-Lopez had forfeited the right to written
   notice of his removal hearing by failing to provide a valid address where the
   immigration court could mail the notice.

                                         2
Case: 22-60316        Document: 00516666873             Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/06/2023

                                        No. 22-60316

           Pena-Lopez argues that Spagnol-Bastos does not govern his case
   because there was no similar forfeiture of his right to receive written notice
   given that “he did provide an address on his NTA.” But the alien in Spagnol-
   Bastos also provided his address to immigration authorities, which was
   incorrectly recorded as “Manhaion” rather than “Manhattan,” among other
   errors. See 19 F.4th at 805. This court still held that the alien had failed to
   comply with his obligation to provide an address at which he could receive
   notice of his removal hearing, and had therefore forfeited his right to written
   notice under § 1229a(b)(5)(B). Id. at 806-07.
           Pena-Lopez provided an address to immigration authorities which he
   later claimed was inaccurately recorded. 1 “Regardless of how the error in his
   address was introduced, [Pena-Lopez] had an obligation to correct that error
   with the immigration court. He failed to do so, and as a result he was not
   entitled to actual notice of his removal hearing.” Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d
   at 149. The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Pena-
   Lopez’s motion to reopen and rescind his in absentia removal order because
   he forfeited his right to written notice by failing to provide immigration
   authorities with a viable mailing address. See Barrios-Cantarero, 772 F.3d at
   1021; see also Spagnol-Bastos, 19 F.4th at 806-07; Mauricio-Benitez, 908 F.3d
   at 148-49.
           Next, Pena-Lopez argues that because his NTA lacked the date and
   time of his removal hearing, jurisdiction never vested with the immigration
   court. He acknowledges in his reply brief, however, that his jurisdictional
   argument runs counter to this court’s binding precedent in Pierre-Paul v.
   Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by
           _____________________
           1
             The address listed on the NTA and the subsequent hearing notice was 90519
   Strip, Apartment #1, but according to Pena-Lopez’s affidavit presented with his motion to
   reopen, the correct address was 90519 Street, Apartment #1.

                                              3
Case: 22-60316      Document: 00516666873           Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/06/2023

                                     No. 22-60316

   Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1479-80, and Maniar, but he states that he is raising
   the issue to preserve it for further review.
          This court held in Pierre-Paul that a defect in an NTA does not deprive
   an immigration court of jurisdiction over removal proceedings. 930 F.3d at
   691-93. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez abrogated
   Pierre-Paul in part, this court confirmed in Maniar that the jurisdictional
   holding from Pierre-Paul remains “the law of [this] circuit,” even after Niz-
   Chavez. See Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 n.2. Thus, there is no merit to Pena-
   Lopez’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his
   removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693.
          Pena-Lopez also maintains that his due process rights were violated
   because he never received proper statutory notice of his removal proceedings
   and because jurisdiction never vested with the immigration court. “[T]his
   court has held that no liberty interest exists in a motion to reopen, and
   therefore due process claims are not cognizable in the context of reopening
   proceedings.” Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Finally, Pena-Lopez argues that the BIA erred in refusing to reopen
   his removal proceedings sua sponte because Niz-Chavez presented a
   fundamental change in the law and constituted an exceptional circumstance.
   This court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to
   exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings because “no
   meaningful standard exists against which to judge” that decision. Enriquez-
   Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249 (5th Cir. 2004).
          Based on the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED in part
   and DISMISSED in part.

                                          4