Court Opinion

ID: 9401648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 18:00:35.864123+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:54.069135
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60798     Document: 00516784868         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

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

                                                                           FILED
                                                                       June 13, 2023
                                  No. 21-60798
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk

   Cleiton Alexandre-Matias,

                                                                     Petitioner,

                                      versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                    Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. 098 885 746

   Before Wiener, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge:
          In 2005, Cleiton Alexandre-Matias, a native and citizen of Brazil, was
   ordered removed in absentia. In 2018, he moved to reopen and rescind the
   removal order, and an immigration judge (IJ) denied his request. He
   appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA dismissed
   his appeal. He now petitions for review of that dismissal.
          This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). “We review the denial of a motion to reopen under
Case: 21-60798       Document: 00516784868            Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                       No. 21-60798

   a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917
   F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d
   199, 203–04 (5th Cir. 2017) (describing highly deferential standard of
   review).    “Motions to reopen immigration proceedings are disfavored
   because as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the
   deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Fuentes-
   Pena, 917 F.3d at 829 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
          The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and
   its rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517.
   The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be
   supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v.
   Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the
   BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.
   Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has
   the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable
   factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
          In this appeal, Alexandre-Matias lodges several challenges to the
   denial of his motion to reopen. For the first time, he contends that the BIA
   and the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the
   record does not show that his notice to appear (NTA) was ever filed with the
   immigration court, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). We have previously
   explained that § 1003.14 “is not jurisdictional,” but is “a claim-processing
   rule.” Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 691 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part
   on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479–80 (2021). 1
   Thus, Alexandre-Matias’s jurisdictional challenge fails. And because he

          1
            See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021) (confirming that
   Pierre-Paul’s jurisdictional holding remains good law).

                                             2
Case: 21-60798        Document: 00516784868              Page: 3       Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                          No. 21-60798

   raises his alternative non-jurisdictional challenge based on § 1003.14 for the
   first time in his reply brief, we will not consider it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
   F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
           In another new argument, Alexandre-Matias contends that the BIA
   erred by relying on a reconstructed record that did not contain his NTA. 2 In
   denying his request, the BIA mainly relied on the Form I-213, the Record of
   Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, that was in the reconstituted record.
   “[A]bsent any evidence that a Form I-213 contains information that is
   incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress, that document is inherently
   trustworthy and admissible as evidence to prove alienage or deportability.”
   Matter of Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 784, 785 (BIA 1999); see also
   Matter of Barcenas, 19 I. & N. Dec. 609, 611 (BIA 1988) (describing a Form
   I-213 as an “inherently trustworthy” document). We have previously held
   that a Form I-213 may be used to establish an alien’s deportability. See
   Bustos-Torres v. INS, 898 F.2d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 1990).
           Alexandre-Matias’s Form I-213 was completed on the same day he
   was encountered by Border Patrol with no entry visa. The Form I-213
   reflects that an interpreter was provided and assisted in the NTA paperwork.
   Moreover, the address where Alexandre-Matias planned to live in
   Massachusetts was recorded on the document. We discern nothing in the
   record to suggest that Alexandre-Matias’s Form I-213 “is incorrect or was

           2
             We note that Alexandre-Matias did not raise this issue in a motion to reconsider
   with the BIA, which would have previously foreclosed our review of this claim. However,
   the Supreme Court recently overruled this court’s long-held view that the exhaustion
   requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional in nature. Santos-Zacaria v. Garland,
   143 S. Ct. 1103 (2023). In Santos-Zacaria, the Court held that the exhaustion requirement
   is instead a claim-processing rule. Id. at 1113–14. And Alexandre-Matias is no longer
   required to file a motion to reconsider a claim that arises as the result of the BIA opinion
   before pursuing that claim on appeal here. See id. at 1119–20.

                                                3
Case: 21-60798     Document: 00516784868          Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                   No. 21-60798

   obtained by coercion or duress,” Ponce-Hernandez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 785;
   the BIA could thus properly rely on it as “inherently trustworthy and
   admissible as evidence,” id., that Alexandre-Matias received notice of his
   removal hearing.
          Next, Alexandre-Matias contends that his in absentia removal order
   should have been rescinded because he did not receive written notice of the
   time and place of his removal hearing, as required by 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) (stating that an in
   absentia removal order may be rescinded via a motion to reopen when the
   alien demonstrates that he did not receive the notice required by § 1229(a)).
   But Alexandre-Matias’s Form I-213 references the time, date, and location
   of the scheduled removal hearing and records that Alexandre-Matias was
   provided with the “necessary forms to affect [sic] the NTA,” as well as a
   certified interpreter to translate the NTA paperwork.        The BIA thus
   concluded that Alexandre-Matias had been personally served with an NTA,
   advised of the time and place of his removal hearing, and afforded a
   Portuguese interpreter. Though Alexandre-Matias presented his own sworn
   declarations challenging his understanding of the translator’s statements,
   documents he may have signed, and his need to attend a removal hearing, he
   failed to present such compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder
   could conclude against it. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536–37 (5th Cir.
   2009). The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Alexandre-
   Matias’s appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen. See Hernandez-
   Castillo, 875 F.3d at 203–04.
          Finally, Alexandre-Matias asserts that his due process rights were
   violated. The Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in
   removal proceedings. Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir.
   2019). Such due process claims are reviewed de novo. Arteaga-Ramirez v.
   Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam). To the extent that

                                        4
Case: 21-60798      Document: 00516784868            Page: 5    Date Filed: 06/13/2023

                                      No. 21-60798

   Alexandre-Matias is asserting a due process challenge to the discretionary
   denial of his motion to reopen, his claim fails for lack of a liberty interest. See
   Ramos-Portillo, 954 F.3d at 963. To the extent that he is asserting a due
   process challenge relating to his purported failure to receive notice of his
   scheduled removal hearing, he is required initially to show substantial
   prejudice by making “a prima facie showing that the alleged violation affected
   the outcome of the proceedings.” Okpala v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th
   Cir. 2018). Relying on his Form I-213, the BIA determined that Alexandre-
   Matias failed to establish that his purported problems understanding the
   interpreter caused him substantial prejudice by preventing him from
   discovering his hearing date. The BIA did not reversibly err in this regard.
          For the foregoing reasons, Alexandre-Matias has not demonstrated
   that the BIA erred on any ground in dismissing his appeal.
                                                         PETITION DENIED.

                                           5