Court Opinion

ID: 9369904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 01:00:32.888456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.030844
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60194         Document: 00516640975             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                       No. 22-60194                             February 9, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Andreia Sousa-Santos,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 BIA No. A098 592 886
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Andreia Sousa-Santos, appearing pro se, is a native and citizen of
   Brazil. She petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
   (“BIA”) denial of her motion for reconsideration of her first motion to
   reopen and the denial of her second motion to reopen. She was ordered
   removed in absentia in 2004. In 2019, she filed her first motion to reopen on

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60194      Document: 00516640975           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                     No. 22-60194

   the grounds that she was seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and
   protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on
   changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).
          We review de novo “the legal question of our own jurisdiction.”
   Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021). Because Sousa-
   Santos did not file a separate petition for review of the dismissal of her appeal
   from the immigration judge’s denial of her first motion to reopen, we lack
   jurisdiction to review it. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450
   F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that “the BIA’s denial of an appeal and
   its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of
   which require their own petitions for review”) (quotation marks and citations
   omitted).    To the extent that Sousa-Santos is challenging the BIA’s
   discretionary denial of sua sponte relief with respect to her second motion to
   reopen, we similarly lack jurisdiction to review it. See Gonzalez-Cantu v.
   Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.5 (5th Cir. 2017) (“we cannot consider the
   BIA’s or the [immigration judge’s] refusal to reopen sua sponte”). Relatedly,
   to the extent that Sousa-Santos is challenging the denial of her motion for
   statutory reopening pursuant to Section 1229a(c)(7), she cannot prevail
   because she is number-barred, as this is her second motion to reopen. See §
   1229a(c)(7)(A) (“[a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings under
   this section”); see also Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2022).
          “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under a
   highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938
   F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). Here, Sousa-Santos has failed to identify a
   change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that
   the BIA overlooked in finding that she did not establish a change in country
   conditions because she failed to present evidence of Brazil’s country
   conditions at the time of her 2004 removal order. See id.; Nunez v. Sessions,
   882 F.3d 499, 508 (5th Cir. 2018). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion

                                          2
Case: 22-60194      Document: 00516640975          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/09/2023

                                    No. 22-60194

   in denying her motion for reconsideration of her first motion to reopen. To
   the extent that Sousa-Santos raises the procedural argument that the BIA
   erroneously used a single-member panel, rather than one with three
   members, to hear her motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction to
   reach that issue because it concerns the BIA’s unreviewable discretionary
   decision. See Cantu-Delgadillo v. Holder, 584 F.3d 682, 691 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Finally, Sousa-Santos has abandoned her issues related to credibility,
   exceptional circumstances, and summary dismissal due to her failure to brief
   them. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Rui
   Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 589 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that while we will
   liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants and apply a less stringent
   standard to them, pro se litigants “must still brief the issues”) (quotation
   marks and citation omitted).
          Accordingly, Sousa-Santos’s petition for review is DISMISSED in
   part and DENIED in part.

                                          3