Court Opinion

ID: 9396560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 00:00:24.873605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.821516
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60629         Document: 00516758995             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60629
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 22, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Sreekumari Konamudi; Sajeev Joseph,                                                 Clerk

                                                                                Petitioners,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                       Agency Nos. A208 775 538, A208 775 539
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Sreekumari Konamudi, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
   review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her motion to
   reopen. (Her husband, Sajeev Joseph, is a derivative beneficiary on her
   application for relief.) The BIA: ruled the motion was untimely; and,
   alternatively, denied relief on the merits.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60629       Document: 00516758995          Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                     No. 22-60629

            Because motions to reopen are “disfavored”, the denial of those
   motions are reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
   standard”. Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (citation 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).
            Konamudi’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction
   over her removal proceedings because her notice to appear (NTA) did not
   include the time and date of her hearing is foreclosed under our precedent.
   See, e.g., Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021).
            Next, “we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to decline sua
   sponte reopening”. Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir.
   2017).
            Further, her due-process challenge fails because she has not shown
   that the lack of a hearing date in her NTA prejudiced her. See Okpala v.
   Whitaker, 908 F.3d 965, 971 (5th Cir. 2018) (“To prevail on a claim regarding
   an alleged denial of due process rights, an alien must make an initial showing
   of substantial prejudice.”).
            Finally, because her petition fails on its merits, we need not consider
   whether she was entitled to 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.”).
            DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                               2