Court Opinion

ID: 9391045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-29 00:01:14.056811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:39.017150
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60502        Document: 00516731311             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/28/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60502                                   FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                             April 28, 2023
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Melvin Alexis Cortez-Ramirez,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of
                         the Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency No. A206 773 085
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Melvin Cortez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
   for review of an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. Because
   motions to reopen are “disfavored,” we review under “a highly deferential
   abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302,
   304–05 (5th Cir. 2017). That standard protects a ruling that “is not capri-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60502      Document: 00516731311           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/28/2023

                                     No. 22-60502

   cious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or other-
   wise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible
   rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005)
   (citation omitted). Cortez-Ramirez has not satisfied the standard.
          Insofar as Cortez-Ramirez maintains that his notice to appear
   (“NTA”) was defective, and thus did not establish jurisdiction over his pro-
   ceedings because the initial NTA did not include the time and date of his
   hearing, that theory is unavailing. See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242
   & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). We lack jurisdiction to consider Cortez-Ramirez’s
   challenge to the BIA’s decision not to exercise its discretion to reopen the
   proceedings sua sponte. See Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206
   (5th Cir. 2017). Because the BIA considered the merits of his arguments, we
   need not consider his equitable-tolling argument. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
   429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam). Finally, his due process argument fails
   because he has not shown that the lack of a hearing date in the initial NTA
   prejudiced him. See Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir.
   2020) (per curiam).
          The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part for want of jurisdiction.

                                              2