Court Opinion

ID: 9396193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 20:00:37.377419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.627349
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12003   Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 05/19/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                                No. 22-12003
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JULIO RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A097-664-917
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12003        Document: 18-1         Date Filed: 05/19/2023        Page: 2 of 6

       2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-12003

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Julio Marcelino Rodriguez-Martinez 1 (“Petitioner”), a native
       and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the
       Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the decision of the
       Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ’s decision denied Petitioner’s mo-
       tion to reopen and to rescind an order of removal issued in absen-
       tia. 2 We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
              Petitioner entered the United States without inspection in
       August 2002. In February 2004, the Immigration and Naturaliza-
       tion Service issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging Peti-
       tioner as removable for being present in the United States without
       having been admitted or paroled. The NTA ordered Petitioner to
       appear before an IJ in Orlando, Florida at a date and time to be set.
              About two weeks later, the immigration court mailed Peti-
       tioner a Notice of Hearing, giving notice that a master hearing be-
       fore the immigration court was scheduled for 11 August 2004. A
       second Notice of Hearing was later mailed rescheduling the master
       hearing for 1 September 2004.

       1 Petitioner says his real name is Victor Vinicio Valdez Avila. For purposes of
       this appeal, we refer to him as “Petitioner.”
       2 The IJ also denied as moot Petitioner’s motion for change of venue. That
       ruling is not before us on appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-12003        Document: 18-1        Date Filed: 05/19/2023        Page: 3 of 6

       22-12003                  Opinion of the Court                              3

             Petitioner failed to appear at the 1 September hearing. The
       IJ conducted the hearing in absentia and ordered Petitioner re-
       moved to Mexico.
              In March 2020 -- more than 15 years after he was ordered
       removed -- Petitioner (through his lawyer) moved to reopen the
       proceedings and to rescind the IJ’s in absentia order. Petitioner ar-
       gued that his removal proceedings should be reopened based on
       two grounds: (1) under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) because he did
       not receive proper notice of the hearing; and (2) based on the IJ’s
       sua sponte authority. In support of his lack-of-notice argument,
       Petitioner asserted that the NTA was defective because it specified
       no date and time for his hearing and, on top of that, he never re-
       ceived a Notice of Hearing.
               The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The IJ first de-
       termined that Petitioner failed to present evidence sufficient to
       demonstrate a lack of proper notice. Second, the IJ determined that
       Petitioner had shown no “extraordinary circumstances” that would
       justify equitably tolling the statutory deadline for filing a motion to
       reopen. 3 Third, the IJ declined to exercise its sua sponte authority:
       the IJ concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a “truly excep-
       tional situation” or a substantial likelihood of a different result.

       3 A noncitizen seeking to rescind an order of removal entered in absentia must
       file a motion to reopen “within 180 days after the date of the order of re-
       moval.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).
USCA11 Case: 22-12003      Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 05/19/2023     Page: 4 of 6

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-12003

               Petitioner appealed the IJ’s decision to the BIA. In his coun-
       seled brief before the BIA, Petitioner argued that the IJ failed to
       consider adequately “several exceptional factors” in declining to ex-
       ercise its sua sponte authority. Petitioner presented no discrete ar-
       gument challenging the IJ’s rulings about lack of proper notice or
       about equitable tolling.
             The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and dis-
       missed Petitioner’s appeal.
              We review de novo our subject-matter jurisdiction. See In-
       drawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). We
       have no jurisdiction to review a final order of removal unless the
       petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies. Id. (citing 8
       U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)).
              To exhaust a claim, a petitioner must have raised before the
       BIA the “core issue” on appeal and “set out any discrete arguments
       he relies on in support of that claim.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810
       F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016). “Unadorned, conclusory statements
       do not satisfy this requirement, and the petitioner must do more
       than make a passing reference to the issue.” Id. (quotations omit-
       ted). While a petitioner is not required to “use precise legal termi-
       nology or provide well-developed arguments to support his claim,”
       he must “provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to re-
       view and correct any errors below.” Id. (quotation omitted).
USCA11 Case: 22-12003         Document: 18-1        Date Filed: 05/19/2023         Page: 5 of 6

       22-12003                   Opinion of the Court                               5

               On appeal, Petitioner raises two arguments, each of which
       focuses on a supposed lack of proper notice. 4 Petitioner first con-
       tends that his NTA was defective under Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141
       S. Ct. 1474 (2021), because it failed to specify the time and place of
       his hearing. Second, Petitioner argues that the BIA failed to con-
       sider adequately the evidence showing that he never received a No-
       tice of Hearing.
              In his brief to the BIA, Petitioner argued chiefly that the IJ
       erred in declining to reopen his proceedings under her sua sponte
       authority. Petitioner made no discrete argument asserting a lack
       of proper notice. As a result, we have no jurisdiction to consider
       Petitioner’s lack-of-notice arguments on appeal. See Jeune, 810
       F.3d at 800. To the extent the BIA did review sua sponte the IJ’s
       conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a lack of proper
       notice, the BIA’s voluntary act does not change our conclusion
       about what was put to the BIA by Petitioner and about the scope
       of our jurisdiction. See Amaya-Argunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463
       F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2006).
              Because Petitioner raises only non-exhausted arguments in
       his petition, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

       4 In his appellate brief, Petitioner presents no argument challenging the denial
       of relief based on equitable tolling or based on the IJ’s sua sponte authority;
       those arguments are not before us. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d
       1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (“When an appellant fails to offer argument on
       an issue, that issue is abandoned.”).
USCA11 Case: 22-12003   Document: 18-1   Date Filed: 05/19/2023   Page: 6 of 6

       6                   Opinion of the Court             22-12003

             PETITION DISMISSED.