Court Opinion

ID: 9388488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 18:00:36.011001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.604177
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60313          Document: 00516718974             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

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

                                        No. 22-60313                                    FILED
                                      Summary Calendar                              April 20, 2023
                                      ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                        Clerk
   Mario Bardales-Gonzalez,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                 Respondent.
                       ______________________________

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A098 991 584
                       ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
           Mario Bardales-Gonzales (“Mr. Bardales”), a native and citizen of
   Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA)
   dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion
   to reopen. 1 A denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly

           _____________________
           *
               This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
           1
             The caption of this case, as well as Mr. Bardales’s own brief before this court,
   incorrectly use “Gonzalez” instead of “Gonzales,” which is the proper spelling of Mr.
Case: 22-60313        Document: 00516718974            Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                        No. 22-60313

   deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d
   955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019). Motions to reopen are disfavored, and the movant
   bears a heavy burden. Gonzales-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 305 (5th Cir.
   2017). Findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
   Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Under the substantial
   evidence standard, we may not reverse a factual finding unless the evidence
   “compels” such a reversal—i.e., the evidence must be “so compelling that
   no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id.
             On review, Mr. Bardales argues that he did not receive sufficient
   notice of his hearing because he did not receive oral notice in his native
   language. Assuming that the law requires such notice, Mr. Bardales has not
   presented compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
   that he received oral notice in Spanish. See id. His notice to appear indicated
   that he received oral notice in Spanish, and he attested that immigration
   officials spoke to him in Spanish.
             Next, Mr. Bardales has not pointed to any case law or evidence in the
   record that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that his alleged confusion
   about his duties to attend his removal hearing constitutes exceptional
   circumstances. See Ramos-Portillo, 919 F.3d at 958. He has similarly failed to
   show that his speculation regarding his health issues constitutes exceptional
   circumstances. His argument that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the
   totality of the circumstances similarly lacks merit; the IJ and BIA’s decisions
   reflect     meaningful    consideration      of     Mr.    Bardales’s     exceptional
   circumstances argument and evidence. See Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L-, 28 I.
   & N. Dec. 318, 321 (BIA 2021); Abdel-Masieh v. U.S. I.N.S., 73 F.3d 579, 585
             _____________________
   Bardales’s maternal surname. His brief to the BIA used the correct spelling and then
   referred to him “hereinafter” as “Mr. Bardales;” hence, that is the name this opinion is
   using.

                                                  2
Case: 22-60313      Document: 00516718974          Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/20/2023

                                    No. 22-60313

   (5th Cir. 1996). It is therefore unnecessary to reach Mr. Bardales’s issue of
   equitable tolling. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a
   general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues
   the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).
          We lack jurisdiction to reach Mr. Bardales’s sua sponte argument. See
   Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that jurisdiction
   is lacking “to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to invoke its sua
   sponte authority to reopen a case because there is no legal standard against
   which to judge that decision” (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted)); Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding
   that we review de novo whether we have jurisdiction). As for Mr. Bardales’s
   due process argument, we have “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, 913 F.3d at 490.
          Accordingly, Mr. Bardales’s petition for review is DISMISSED in
   part and DENIED in part.

                                             3