Court Opinion

ID: 9411816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 00:01:06.754739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:14.575839
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60617         Document: 00516836944             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60617
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     July 27, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   David Reynosa-Romero,                                                               Clerk

                                                                                  Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A090 385 097
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Petitioner David Reynosa-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   seeks review the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision denying
   his 2021 motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Reynosa-Romero
   contends that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to adequately articulate
   the reasons for its denial of his motion or to cite the relevant grounds for

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60617        Document: 00516836944              Page: 2      Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                         No. 22-60617

   denial under precedent. Reynosa-Romero further contends that he is entitled
   to equitable tolling. For the following reasons, Reynosa-Romero’s petition is
   DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
           We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its
   legal conclusions de novo. Ovalles v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir.
   2021), cert. denied sub nom. Ovalles v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 107 (2021). Motions
   to reopen or reconsider 1 are “particularly disfavored,” Nguhlefeh Njilefac v.
   Garland, 992 F.3d 362, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021). We review the denial of such
   motions by BIA “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
   Ovalles, 984 F.3d at 1123 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
   Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017).
           A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the order of
   removal. A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of such an
   order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B), (c)(7)(C)(i). Both time limitations are
   subject to equitable tolling. See Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278,
   284–87 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 86 (2022); Lugo-Resendez v.
   Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016). An alien is entitled to equitable
   tolling if he shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2)
   that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely
   filing.” Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted). Whether a petitioner has exercised due
   diligence for purposes of equitable tolling is a mixed question of fact and law

           _____________________
           1
             In light of this court’s decision in Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278,
   286 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 86 (2022), Reynosa-Romero’s motion is more
   properly considered as a motion to reconsider because he contends that a change in law,
   specifically, INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), invalidated the immigration court’s 1996
   order. See Gonzalez Hernandez, 9 F.4th at 286. The treatment of the motion as such,
   however, does not affect our analysis in this case.

                                                   2
Case: 22-60617      Document: 00516836944          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                    No. 22-60617

   that we have jurisdiction to review. See Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct.
   1062, 1068 (2020).
          We conclude that Reynosa-Romero’s equitable tolling argument is
   unavailing. The BIA’s succinct analysis in this matter reviews the efforts by
   Reynosa-Romero and his wife over the course of twenty years, as set forth in
   his evidence. Given the sporadic nature of the efforts and the lengthy span of
   time, the BIA rationally concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show
   due diligence or an impediment to timely filing. See Gonzalez Hernandez, 9
   F.4th at 283. Although Reynosa-Romero contends that the BIA failed to
   discuss the “extraordinary circumstance [that] stood in his way and
   prevented timely filing,” Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 344, the only support
   that he presented to the BIA in his motion to reopen was the 2001 decision
   in I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289. The agency specifically considered
   Reynosa-Romero’s efforts “between the Supreme Court’s decision in St.
   Cyr and the filing of the instant motion to reopen.”
          Reynosa-Romero further asserts that the BIA failed to address the
   grounds for denying a motion to reopen as set forth in I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485
   U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988). However, because Reynosa-Romero failed to
   demonstrate that his motion to reopen was timely through equitable tolling
   under the relevant law, the BIA was not required to address the merits of his
   motion to reopen. See I.N.S. v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976); Londono-
   Gonzalez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 965, 967–68 (5th Cir. 2020); cf. Abudu, 485 U.S.
   at 104–05. The BIA acted within its discretion in denying the motion to
   reopen or reconsider on those grounds. See Gonzalez Hernandez, 9 F.4th at
   284.
          The BIA articulated and applied the relevant legal analyses in this
   matter. Reynosa-Romero has failed to show error in the BIA’s denial of
   equitable tolling or that its conclusion that his motion to reopen was

                                             3
Case: 22-60617      Document: 00516836944         Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/27/2023

                                   No. 22-60617

   untimely. See Ovalles, 984 F.3d at 1123. The petition for review is therefore
   DENIED as to the denial of equitable tolling and the conclusion that
   Reynosa-Romero’s motion to reopen or reconsider was untimely.
            Moreover, we lack jurisdiction to consider Reynosa-Romero’s
   challenge to the denial of sua sponte reopening, so the petition is
   DISMISSED as to that challenge. Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d
   199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017); see Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 288 (5th Cir.
   2022).

                                            4