Court Opinion

ID: 9554322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 17:12:32.363672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:43.040434
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60426         Document: 00516850013             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

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

                                      ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      August 8, 2023
                                       No. 22-60426                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   Daisy Carolina Perez Yanez; Kenyl Andres Lagos Perez,

                                                                                Petitioners,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                     Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency Nos. A206 778 152,
                                     A206 778 153
                      ______________________________

   Before Duncan and Wilson, Circuit Judges, and Schroeder, District
   Judge. *
   Per Curiam: †
          Daisy Carolina Perez Yanez petitions for review of the Board of
   Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her “Motion to Reopen
   Proceedings.” The BIA determined that her motion to reopen should have
   been filed with the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) rather than with it. Perez Yanez
          _____________________
          *
             United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by
   designation.
          †
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60426       Document: 00516850013            Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                       No. 22-60426

   now argues that the BIA erred in construing her motion as a motion to reopen
   when it was, in substance, a motion to reconsider that was properly before
   the BIA. Finding no error, we deny the petition.
                                             I.
          Perez Yanez and her son, Kenyl Andres Lagos Perez, are aliens from
   Honduras. 1 Perez Yanez was served with a notice to appear that charged her
   as removable for lacking valid entry documents. She then applied for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture, but the IJ ultimately denied her application.
          Perez Yanez appealed to the BIA, but the BIA summarily dismissed
   her appeal as untimely. The dismissal informed her that she could file a
   motion to reconsider with the BIA if she wished to challenge the finding that
   her appeal was untimely. But it warned that a motion “challenging any other
   finding or seek[ing] to reopen [her] case” would have to be filed with the IJ.
          Subsequently, Perez Yanez, through new counsel, filed with the BIA
   a pleading entitled “Motion to Reopen Proceedings and Re-issue a New
   Decision with the New Deadline.” In the motion, Perez Yanez argued that
   the late filing was due to her prior attorney’s ineffective assistance, which
   justified reopening “due to those exceptional circumstances.” Perez Yanez
   requested that the BIA “reopen [her] case” and “reissue the [IJ’s] decision”
   so that she could have a new deadline to appeal to the BIA.
          The BIA denied the motion because it “raise[d] no issues related to
   the [BIA’s] determination that the appeal was untimely.” It further noted
   that her “motion requesting that the [IJ] reissue her decision . . . must be filed

          _____________________
          1
            Because Lagos Perez’s petition is derivative of his mother’s, we refer only to
   Perez Yanez.

                                             2
Case: 22-60426      Document: 00516850013           Page: 3     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-60426

   with the Immigration Court.” Perez Yanez timely petitioned this court for
   review of the BIA’s decision.
                                          II.
          “[W]e review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen or to reconsider
   under the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales,
   404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, the BIA’s decision
   will be affirmed unless it is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without
   foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
   than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Nunez v. Sessions, 882
   F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487
   (5th Cir. 2006)).
                                         III.
          This petition turns on whether Perez Yanez filed a motion to
   reconsider or a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b); see also Pierre v.
   INS, 932 F.2d 418, 421 (5th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Stone v.
   INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (noting that these motions are “separate and
   distinct motions with different requirements” (quoting Sanchez v. INS, 707
   F.2d 1523, 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1983))). In general, a motion to reconsider “urges
   an adjudicative body to re-evaluate the record evidence only,” Zhao, 404
   F.3d at 301, while a motion to reopen presents new facts and evidence,
   Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 285 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Under the BIA’s longstanding “place-of-filing” rule, when the BIA
   dismisses an appeal as untimely without adjudicating the merits, it will only
   entertain motions to reconsider the finding of untimeliness. Motions
   challenging any other finding or requesting reopening must be made to the IJ.
   See In re Lopez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 16, 17 (BIA 1998); In re Mladineo, 14
   I. & N. Dec. 591, 592 (BIA 1974). This rule “ensures that the only body to
   have addressed the merits of a petitioner’s application also adjudicates any

                                           3
Case: 22-60426      Document: 00516850013           Page: 4     Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 22-60426

   potential motion to reopen.” Hernandez v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th
   Cir. 2013).
          We determine what a motion is by its substance, not its label. See Zhao,
   404 F.3d at 301. Perez Yanez argues that the BIA erred in construing her
   “Motion to Reopen Proceedings and Re-issue a New Decision with the New
   Deadline” as a motion to reopen. Although labeled as a “Motion to
   Reopen,” she claims that it was substantively a motion to reconsider.
   Specifically, she argues that because her motion claimed ineffective
   assistance of counsel as the reason for her untimely filing, she was in fact
   requesting the BIA’s reconsideration of untimeliness.
           A review of the motion does not support this conclusion. To begin
   with, the motion requests reopening or characterizes itself as a motion to
   reopen no fewer than five times. It never mentions reconsideration. While
   these labels are not dispositive, it is telling that Perez Yanez characterized her
   motion throughout as one to reopen.
          But what is fatal to Perez Yanez’s argument is the type of relief she
   requested. Her motion specifically requested that the BIA “reopen the case”
   and “reissue the [IJ’s] decision with [a] new deadline” to appeal so that she
   could re-appeal to the BIA. Other circuits have consistently held that such a
   request for reissuance is effectively a motion to reopen. See Jahjaga v. Att’y
   Gen., 512 F.3d 80, 82 (3d Cir. 2008) (“We treat a motion to reissue as a
   motion to reopen”); Chen v. Att’y Gen., 502 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 2007) (“A
   motion to reissue is treated as a motion to reopen.”); Lujan-Jimenez v. Lynch,
   643 F. App’x 737, 739 n.2 (10th Cir. 2016) (similar). That is because “the
   case would have to be reopened before the BIA could grant the requested
   relief” of reissuance. Tobeth-Tangang v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 537, 539 n.2 (1st
   Cir. 2006). In fact, the regulations do not specifically provide for motions to
   reissue, so courts “follow the BIA’s lead and treat the motion as a motion to

                                           4
Case: 22-60426        Document: 00516850013              Page: 5       Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                         No. 22-60426

   reopen.” Ibid.; Lujan-Jimenez, 643 F. App’x at 739 n.2. Because Perez Yanez
   requested reissuance of the IJ’s decision, the BIA was within its discretion to
   treat her motion as one to reopen and subsequently dismiss it as improperly
   filed under the place-of-filing rule. 2
           Further undermining Perez Yanez’s claim is the fact that, if her
   motion had been one to reconsider, it would have been untimely. While there
   is a 90-day window to move to reopen, there is only a 30-day window to move
   to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b). As a motion to reopen, Perez
   Yanez’s motion was timely. But, as a motion to reconsider, it would have
   been filed well beyond the relevant deadline. This supports the BIA’s
   conclusion that the motion was in fact a motion to reopen.
           In conclusion, we cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion in
   denying Perez Yanez’s motion under its place-of-filing rule.
                                              IV.
           The petition for review is DENIED.

           _____________________
           2
            In re Lopez does say that a motion to reconsider can “request[] consideration of
   the reasons for untimeliness” in addition to challenging the finding of untimeliness itself.
   22 I. & N. Dec. at 17. But Perez Yanez does not argue that the BIA erred under In re Lopez,
   and she has therefore forfeited any such argument. See Ahmed v. Sessions, 713 Fed. App’x
   308, 309 (5th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (deeming such an argument abandoned in a similar
   case).

                                                5