Court Opinion

ID: 9366230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:40.26234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.866182
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60629      Document: 00516419861        Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

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

                                                                             FILED
                                  No. 21-60629                          August 4, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   Olasupo Fatubaro,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A078 990 809

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Olasupo Fatubaro, a native and citizen of Nigeria, timely petitions us
   for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion
   to reconsider.

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60629      Document: 00516419861          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-60629

          We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-of-
   discretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019).
   Under this standard, Fatubaro must identify either a “change in the law, a
   misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked.”
   Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005)). The BIA's decision will
   stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or] utterly without
   foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83
   (5th Cir. 1993)). Fatubaro does not argue that the motion was timely
   received, and the BIA does not have a mailbox rule. See Matter of Liadov, 23
   I. & N. Dec. 990, 991-93 (BIA 2006).
          We lack jurisdiction to consider Fatubaro’s arguments. To the extent
   he argues that his motion should not have been denied for timeliness after
   being rejected for improper service and that his motion should have been
   equitably tolled, these arguments are unexhausted. Lopez-Dubon v. Holder,
   609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010). Fatubaro also argues that the BIA should
   not have declined to exercise its sua sponte authority because he did not ask
   for this relief, and that it should not have applied the departure bar when
   denying sua sponte relief, but we lack jurisdiction to review the exercise of
   that authority. Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 207 (5th Cir.
   2017). We also note that he argues the merits of his motion, but without
   jurisdiction we have no basis to consider that argument.
          DISMISSED.

                                          2