Court Opinion

ID: 9366242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:08.63819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.019338
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60750     Document: 00516429252         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

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

                                                                       FILED
                                                                 August 11, 2022
                                  No. 21-60750                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                       Clerk

   Jose Luis Everastico Sotelo,

                                                                         Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                       Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A206 425 188

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jose Luis Everastico Sotelo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
   for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion to
   reopen. He asserts his motion, based on ineffective assistance of counsel
   (IAC), was improperly denied. Sotelo concedes he failed to fulfill all the

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60750      Document: 00516429252           Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 21-60750

   requirements for an IAC claim by not submitting a copy of a disciplinary
   complaint. He maintains, however, that he did not have enough time because
   of the need to submit his motion before its deadline and should, therefore, be
   excused.
          It goes without saying that the denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed
   under the “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard”. Lara v.
   Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). This standard requires a ruling
   to be upheld, even if our court concludes it is erroneous, “so long as it is not
   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”. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.
   2005) (citation omitted).
          The BIA’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious as the record
   reflects Sotelo had over two years to submit all the required documents for
   his IAC claim to be considered but did not do so.
          DENIED.

                                          2