Court Opinion

ID: 9407980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 00:00:37.460105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.002982
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60307     Document: 00516814727         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

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

                                ____________                                  FILED
                                                                          July 10, 2023
                                 No. 22-60307                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                                  Clerk

   Samuel De Jesus Argueta-Hernandez,

                                                                     Petitioner,

                                      versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                    Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A094 753 033
                  ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:
         When does an order of removal become ‘final’? The answer matters
   because Samuel De Jesus Argueta-Hernandez asks us to review the BIA’s
   order denying his application for withholding of removal and protection
   under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Congress has, however,
   limited our jurisdiction to final orders “concluding that the alien is
   deportable or ordering deportation.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1691
   (2020) (citation omitted). And it imposed another condition: the petition
   must be filed within 30 days of that order. Since Argueta-Hernandez’s
Case: 22-60307         Document: 00516814727               Page: 2       Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                           No. 22-60307

   petition does not meet these requirements, we DISMISS it for lack of
   jurisdiction.
                                                 I.
           Argueta-Hernandez is a native of El Salvador. He first entered the
   United States around 2003 and was ordered removed in 2007. He then
   returned three more times—in 2010, 2018, and 2019. This appeal concerns
   his 2019 visit.
           In September 2019, the federal government reinstated Argueta-
   Hernandez’s 2007 removal order.1 This time, Argueta-Hernandez expressed
   fear of going back to El Salvador. He claimed he was running from MS-13, a
   notorious El Salvadorian gang. The gang asked him to store and transport
   contraband, and pay a quota. They did so, allegedly, because Argueta-
   Hernandez was a Christian and could travel without arousing suspicion.
   When he refused, gang members threatened to kill him and his family. Local
   authorities did little to help.
           Argueta-Hernandez sought withholding of removal and CAT relief.
   An immigration judge denied his application and, on April 27, 2022, the BIA
   dismissed his appeal. Argueta-Hernandez petitioned for review on May 26,
   2022.

           _____________________
           1
              Illegal reentrants undergo an expedited removal process. See 8 U.S.C. §
   1231(a)(5). In sum, “the agency obtains the alien’s prior order of removal, confirms the
   alien’s identity, determines whether the alien’s reentry was unauthorized, provides the
   alien with written notice of its determination, allows the alien to contest that determination,
   and then reinstates the order.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2021)
   (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.8(a)–(c), 1241.8(a)–(c)).

                                                      2
Case: 22-60307      Document: 00516814727           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                     No. 22-60307

                                         II.
           Jurisdiction to review removal decisions is a creature of statute.
   Congress has limited that jurisdiction in several ways. We may review “final
   order[s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We may also review “all
   questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding
   brought to remove an alien” but only if there is a final order of removal.
   § 1252(b)(9). Either way, the noncitizen must seek review “no[] later than
   30 days after” the order becomes final. § 1252(b)(1). This deadline is
   “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995)
   (citation omitted). It cannot be equitably tolled. Id.
           Argueta-Hernandez petitioned for review within 30 days after the BIA
   denied his application for withholding of removal and CAT relief. So his
   petition presents two questions: are those denials “final order[s] of
   removal”? § 1252(a)(1). If not, is there an eligible order from which we have
   jurisdiction? See § 1252(b)(9).
           The first issue is simple: the denials are not orders of removal. A
   removal order is one that “conclud[es] that the alien is deportable or order[s]
   deportation.” § 1101(a)(47)(A). The Supreme Court recently held that
   orders denying CAT relief or withholding of removal are not orders of
   removal. See Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1691 (quoting § 1101(a)(47)(A));
   Johnson, 141 S. Ct. at 2285. Instead, those orders address the “separate []
   and antecedent” issue of “where an alien may be removed,” not “whether an
   alien” is removable. Johnson, 141 S. Ct. at 2286, 2288. That determination
   neither “disturb[s] the final order of removal,” nor “affect[s] [its] validity.”
   Johnson, 141 S. Ct. at 2288 (quoting Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1691). The
   removal order “remains in full force” and the agency “retains the authority
   to remove the alien to any other country authorized by the statute.” Id. at
   2285.

                                               3
Case: 22-60307      Document: 00516814727          Page: 4    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                    No. 22-60307

          That leaves the second issue. Since the BIA’s denial is not an order
   of removal, Argueta-Hernandez must point to another eligible order for us to
   have jurisdiction. See § 1252(b)(9); Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1691. He claims
   the 2019 reinstatement order is up to the task. But we do not agree.
          To explain, we must first clarify our precedent. We previously held
   that a reinstatement order is an order of removal. Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft,
   290 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing § 1101(a)(47)(A)). In Ponce-Osorio
   v. Johnson, we also held that a reinstatement order does not become “final”
   until all reasonable-fear and withholding-of-removal proceedings have
   ended. 824 F.3d 502, 504–05 (5th Cir. 2016). We did so because, under
   Section 1101(a)(47)(B), an order of removal becomes “final” when the BIA
   affirms it or the time to appeal expires, whichever is earlier. This definition,
   however, provides “little assistance” for reinstatement orders “because
   [agency] regulations confer no means to appeal the reinstatement of a
   removal order to the BIA.” Id. at 504; see 8 C.F.R. § 241.8. Citing out-of-
   circuit authority, we thus interpreted ‘finality’ to mean the “ending [of] a
   court action or proceeding leaving nothing further to be determined by the
   court or to be done except the administrative execution of the court’s finding,
   but not precluding an appeal.” Id. (quoting Luna-Garcia v. Holder, 777 F.3d
   1182, 1185 (10th Cir. 2015)). And because a reinstatement order “cannot be
   executed” until the conclusion of withholding-only proceedings, we held that
   a reinstatement order is not final until those proceedings have ended. Id. at
   505.
          Under this broad definition of Section 1101(a)(47)(B), we would have
   jurisdiction over Argueta-Hernandez’s petition. The BIA’s reinstatement
   order is an order of removal. And it became final when the BIA denied his
   application for CAT relief and withholding of removal. See id. at 505.
   Argueta-Hernandez timely appealed that order within 30 days.             See §
   1252(b)(1).

                                              4
Case: 22-60307      Document: 00516814727           Page: 5    Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                     No. 22-60307

          Yet recent Supreme Court cases have “implicitly overruled” the
   reasoning in Ponce-Osorio. In re Bonvillian Marine Serv., 19 F.4th 787, 792
   (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Our rule of orderliness thus “obligat[es]
   [us] to declare and implement this change in the law.” United States v.
   Tanksley, 848 F.3d 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2017).
          To begin with, Nasrallah and Johnson have “fundamentally change[d]
   the focus” of our understanding of finality under § 1101(a)(47)(B). Acosta v.
   Hensel Phelps Constr. Co., 909 F.3d 723, 742 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation
   omitted). Nasrallah explained that “[f]or purposes of [§ 1101(a)(47)], final
   orders of removal encompass only the rulings made by the [BIA] that affect
   the validity of the final order of removal.” 140 S. Ct. at 1691 (emphasis added).
   Johnson confirmed that understanding. 141 S. Ct. at 2288 (“Because the
   validity of removal orders is not affected by the grant of withholding-only
   relief, [the] initiation of [such] proceedings does not render non-final an
   otherwise ‘administratively final’ reinstated order of removal.”).
          Ponce-Osorio’s sweeping definition of finality is also “unequivocally
   inconsistent” with Nasrallah and Johnson. Miller v. Dunn, 35 F.4th 1007,
   1012 (5th Cir. 2022). Both cases make clear that “the finality of the order of
   removal does not depend in any way on the outcome of [] withholding-only
   proceedings.” Johnson, 141 S. Ct. at 2287; see Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1691
   (“[A] ruling on a CAT claim . . . does not merge into the final order of
   removal” for purpose of judicial review). That is because the removal order
   concerns “whether an alien is to be removed,” not where. Johnson, 141 S. Ct.
   at 2285–86; see § 1101(a)(47)(A). And that determination becomes final the
   moment the prior order is reinstated.
          To be sure, neither Nasrallah nor Johnson addressed jurisdiction
   under Section 1252. They did, however, define finality by reference to
   Section 1101(a)(47). See Nasrallah, 140 S. Ct. at 1691; Johnson, 141 S. Ct. at

                                              5
Case: 22-60307        Document: 00516814727          Page: 6   Date Filed: 07/10/2023

                                      No. 22-60307

   2288 (applying Nasrallah’s interpretation of finality). That provision defines
   finality in Section 1252. See Ponce-Osorio, 824 F.3d at 504. Their reasoning
   thus applies here too. Cf. Gahagan v. USCIS, 911 F.3d 298, 303 (5th Cir.
   2018).
            It comes as no surprise then, that just last year, a panel of this court
   questioned the continued vitality of Ponce-Osorio. See Ruiz-Perez v. Garland,
   49 F.4th 972, 975–76 (5th Cir. 2022). Likewise, two circuits have recently
   held that withholding-only proceedings do not impact the finality of an order
   of removal. See Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland, 32 F.4th 180, 190–95 (2d Cir.
   2022); Farooq v. AG U.S., No. 20-2950, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3065, at *7
   (3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2023); but see Salinas-Montenegro v. Garland, No. 21-3, 2023
   U.S. App. LEXIS 11100, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir May 4, 2023) (reaching the
   opposite conclusion without explanation). Bound by Nasrallah and Johnson,
   we must do the same.
                                          III.
            The BIA’s denial of Argueta-Hernandez’s application for
   withholding of removal and CAT relief is not a final order of removal. And
   his petition is untimely because it was filed over 30 days after his
   reinstatement order became final. We thus DISMISS this petition for lack
   of jurisdiction.

                                                 6