Court Opinion

ID: 9375358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 16:00:59.3006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:58.323450
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60140     Document: 00516655492         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/24/2023

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

                                  No. 22-60140
                                                                             FILED
                                                                     February 24, 2023
                                Summary Calendar
                                ____________                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A091 374 218
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA),
   denying reconsideration of its denial of a number barred motion to reopen.

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-60140       Document: 00516655492         Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                                    No. 22-60140

          This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider “under
   a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d
   713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As
   long as the BIA’s decision “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly
   without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is
   arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach,” it will
   be upheld. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          Alvarez-De Sauceda argues that the BIA committed legal error when
   it found that her Notice to Appear (NTA), which failed to include the date
   and time of her removal hearing, vested the immigration court with
   jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. She acknowledges, however, that
   her jurisdictional argument based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
   (2018), runs counter to this court’s binding precedent in Pierre-Paul v. Barr,
   930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez
   v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479-80 (2021), and Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d
   235 (5th Cir. 2021), but states that she 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 Alvarez-
   De Sauceda’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over
   her removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693.
          Alvarez-De Sauceda further argues that the BIA erred in finding that
   she was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229b(a)(3) based on her prior conviction for the Texas felony offense of
   possession of 50 pounds or less but more than five pounds of marijuana,

                                          2
Case: 22-60140        Document: 00516655492        Page: 3    Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                                    No. 22-60140

   which the BIA deemed an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B);
   see also TEXAS HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.121(a) and § 481.121(b)(4).
   The Government initially moved this court to remand the case to the BIA in
   lieu of briefing so that the BIA could consider the impact, if any, of Arce-
   Vences v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 2007), on its determination that
   Alvarez-De Sauceda’s marijuana conviction constituted an aggravated
   felony. We ordered that the motion be carried with the case and briefing
   resumed. The Government now argues in its brief that remand would be
   futile in light of this court’s recent decision in Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280
   (5th Cir. 2022), because Alvarez-De Sauceda’s motion to reopen is number
   barred, and there is no statutory basis for the BIA to grant a number barred
   motion to reopen.
          Here, Alvarez-De Sauceda sought reconsideration of the BIA’s denial
   of her second motion to reopen, arguing that the BIA committed legal error
   in determining that she was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal
   based on her prior conviction for possession of marijuana, which the BIA
   deemed an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(B). Even if we were to
   assume that Arce-Vences rendered the BIA’s characterization of Alvarez-De
   Sauceda’s marijuana conviction erroneous, applying the reasoning in Djie,
   remand to the BIA would be futile because § 1229a(c)(7)(A) bars her motion
   to reopen. See 39 F.4th at 288. As such, her petition for review must be
   denied, not remanded. See id. The Government’s motion to remand is
   likewise denied.
          Finally, Alvarez-De Sauceda challenges the BIA’s refusal to exercise
   its discretionary authority to reopen her removal proceedings sua sponte
   based on her argument that the BIA erred in characterizing her marijuana
   conviction as an aggravated felony. This court has long held that it lacks
   jurisdiction to review challenges to the BIA’s decision not to exercise its
   authority to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. See id.

                                          3
Case: 22-60140   Document: 00516655492       Page: 4   Date Filed: 02/24/2023

                              No. 22-60140

         The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part. The Government’s unopposed motion to remand is DENIED.

                                   4