Court Opinion

ID: 9364213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 19:00:20.737761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:36.698567
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60065        Document: 00516614031             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/18/2023

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

                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                     January 18, 2023
                                       No. 21-60065                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk

   Harold Eduardo Miranda-Cruz; Damny Ayalila Castro-
   Amador; Boris Carlo Miranda-Castro,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.

                       Appeal for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                 BIA Nos. A213 292 536; A213 292 537; A213 292 538

   Before Higginbotham, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Petitioners are a family of Nicaraguan citizens who, after being
   ordered removed from the United States in absentia, subsequently moved to
   reopen their removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   adopted the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) ruling that Petitioners’ motion was

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60065         Document: 00516614031              Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                          No. 21-60065

   untimely and not subject to equitable tolling.1 They now petition for our
   review. We review the BIA’s decision under a “highly deferential abuse-of-
   discretion standard” and must affirm it “as long as [the decision] 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.”
   Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).
   We review the IJ’s decision to the extent it influenced the BIA’s ruling.
   Cardona-Franco v. Garland, 35 F.4th 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Qorane
   v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 909 n.1 (5th Cir. 2019)).
           Petitioners, now joined by the Government,2 argue the BIA and IJ
   abused their discretion in denying equitable tolling. Having studied the briefs
   and the record, as well as hearing oral argument, we deny the petition for
   review.
           Petitioners first argue that they faced extraordinary circumstances
   justifying equitable tolling because, after first unlawfully entering the United
   States in 2019, they were required by then-existing immigration policy to
   return to Mexico to await their removal hearing. See Biden v. Texas, 142 S. Ct.
   2528, 2535 (2022) (discussing “Migrant Protection Protocols”); 8 U.S.C.
   § 1225(b)(2)(C). We lack jurisdiction to consider this argument because
   Petitioners failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Cruz Rodriguez v. Garland,
   993 F.3d 340, 345 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v.

           1
              See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(7)(C)(iii) (in absentia removal order may be
   rescinded only upon motion to reopen filed within 180 days, provided alien shows failure
   to appear was due to “exceptional circumstances”); Eneugwu v. Garland, --- F.4th ---, 2022
   WL 17351907, at *2–3 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2022) (equitable tolling requires an alien to show he
   was “pursuing his rights diligently” and an “extraordinary circumstance . . . prevented
   timely filing” (quoting Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016))).
           2
            The Government previously opposed Petitioners’ motion to reopen before the
   BIA and the IJ but has now changed its position.

                                                2
Case: 21-60065        Document: 00516614031              Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                         No. 21-60065

   Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004)). Even had they exhausted the
   issue, Petitioners cite no authority for the proposition that complying with
   federal immigration policy can constitute extraordinary circumstances for
   equitable tolling purposes. Cf. Pena-Lopez v. Garland, 33 F.4th 798, 807 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (concluding the “usual hardships of a relocation” do not present
   “extraordinary circumstance[s]”).
           Second, Petitioners claim that, on the day of their scheduled removal
   hearing in September 2019, they were kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel,
   held for ransom, and released after 15 days. The IJ found no evidence to
   substantiate the kidnapping. But, even assuming the kidnapping occurred, as
   both the BIA and the IJ pointed out, Petitioners would still have had 165 days
   following their release to timely file a motion to reopen, but failed to do so.
   We see no basis to disagree with the BIA’s and IJ’s reasoning, much less to
   find an abuse of discretion.
           Finally, Petitioners contend they were prevented from timely filing
   because, after they again unlawfully entered the United States in 2020, they
   were detained by the Department of Homeland Security. This detention
   could not have justified Petitioners’ untimely filing, however. Their deadline
   for moving to reopen expired on March 24, 2020. As the BIA pointed out,
   Petitioners did not decide to return to the United States until that same
   month and, before that, the lead Petitioner was employed in Mexico.
   Moreover, Petitioner’s affidavit suggests the family did not reenter the
   United States until March 25, 2020—after the filing deadline had expired.
   So, we see no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s ruling.3

           3
            The Government argues Petitioners diligently pursued their rights by attempting
   to contact U.S. immigration officials following the alleged kidnapping. But the IJ found no
   evidence of this, nor do Petitioners themselves raise the point on appeal. We therefore do

                                               3
Case: 21-60065       Document: 00516614031             Page: 4      Date Filed: 01/18/2023

                                        No. 21-60065

                                                             PETITION DENIED.

   not address it. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021) (a party
   forfeits an argument by failing to brief it on appeal).

                                              4