Court Opinion

ID: 9408794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 18:00:45.53961+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.798562
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60569         Document: 00516819268             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023

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

                                      ____________                                FILED
                                                                              July 13, 2023
                                       No. 22-60569
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                     ____________

   Jose Patricio Sandoval-Salmeron,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                 Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A094 798 908
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jose Patricio Sandoval-Salmeron, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   denying his motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as untimely; and
   alternatively, denied relief on the merits. In addition, it declined to reopen
   sua sponte.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60569      Document: 00516819268           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/13/2023

                                     No. 22-60569

          Because motions to reopen are “disfavored”, their denial is reviewed
   under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gonzalez-Cantu
   v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). This
   standard requires a ruling to stand so long as “it is not capricious, without
   foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
   than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. Id. (citation omitted).
           “A motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) must be filed
   within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal”.
   Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
   Although Sandoval filed his motion beyond the 90-day deadline and did not
   seek equitable tolling, he incorrectly maintains that, based on his defective
   notice to appear (NTA), he was entitled to challenge the agency’s
   jurisdiction at any time. E.g., Flores-Abarca v. Barr, 937 F.3d 473, 477–78 (5th
   Cir. 2019) (rejecting argument as foreclosed by precedent); Lugo-Resendez,
   831 F.3d 337 at 342–43; see § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
          Sandoval’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction
   over his removal proceedings because his NTA did not include a time and
   date for the initial hearing is foreclosed under our precedent. E.g., Maniar v.
   Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). Because Sandoval’s notice
   claims are non-jurisdictional and his untimely motion to reopen was
   automatically converted into a regulatory motion based on his failing to seek
   equitable tolling, we lack jurisdiction to consider the agency’s denial of that
   motion. E.g., Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 342–43 (failing to comply with
   statutory requirements of § 1229a(c)(7) requires motion be construed as
   regulatory motion to sua sponte reopen proceedings); Hernandez-Castillo v.
   Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017) (explaining “we lack jurisdiction
   to review the BIA’s decision to decline sua sponte reopening”).
          DISMISSED.

                                           2