Court Opinion

ID: 9959818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 18:00:48.361972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:55.331222
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60510            Document: 33-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/12/2024

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

                                                                                 FILED
                                    No. 23-60510                             April 12, 2024
                                  Summary Calendar                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                   Clerk

Haralambos Panagiotis Karvounis,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                             Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A030 867 122
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Haralambos Panagiotis Karvounis, a native and citizen of Greece,
petitions this court for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings
for the purpose of seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
He presents three issues for the court’s review: (1) whether the BIA engaged

      _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60510        Document: 33-1      Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/12/2024

in impermissible factfinding; (2) whether the BIA categorically held that time
spent outside of the United States and abandonment of lawful permanent
residence (LPR) status were significant negative equities, contrary to law;
and (3) whether the BIA failed to apply the proper standard of review and
consider that DHS had already “stipulated to discretion.”
         Because Karvounis sought discretionary relief and was previously
convicted of possession of cocaine, our jurisdiction is limited to
constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),
(iv) & (C); see also Perez v. Garland, 67 F.4th 254, 257-58 (5th Cir. 2023);
Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, we cannot
review the BIA’s pure factual findings or discretionary determinations. See
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 337-39(2022); Nastase v. Barr, 964 F.3d 313,
319-20 (5th Cir. 2020). Moreover, a petitioner “may not—merely by
“phras[ing] his argument in legal terms”—“use[ ] those terms to cloak a
request for review of the BIA’s discretionary decision, which is not a question
of law.” Nastase, 964 F.3d at 319 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We review de novo the issue of whether we have jurisdiction to
consider the BIA’s decision, as well as issues concerning constitutional
claims and questions of law. Rodriguez v. Holder, 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir.
2013).
         Whether the BIA failed to abide by its own regulations presents an
issue of law and is therefore reviewable. See Jean v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 392,
395–96 (5th Cir. 2006). We have held that 8 U.S.C. § 1003.1(d)(3) applies
only to the BIA’s disposition of appeals and not to motions to reopen filed
with the BIA, which must state “the new facts that [would] be proven at a
hearing to be held if the motion is granted.” 8 U.S.C. § 1003.2(c)(1); see
Mata v. Sessions, 678 F. App’x 198, 200 (5th Cir. 2017); de Lezama v. Holder,
577 F. App’x 314, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2014). Although Mata and de Lezama are
unpublished, they are persuasive. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 &
Case: 23-60510       Document: 33-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/12/2024

n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4). Karvounis’s argument that
the BIA applied a categorical determination that (1) the time he spent outside
the United States and (2) his abandonment of LPR status constituted
significant negative equities, which contravened its legal obligation to decide
his case individually is reviewable, see § 1252(a)(2)(D), but the BIA’s opinion
demonstrates that it considered his individual circumstances.
       Whether the BIA erred as a matter of law by requiring him to satisfy a
higher standard than demonstrating a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the relief
sought would be granted at the reopened hearing,” Matter of S- V-, 22 I. &
N. Dec. 1306 (BIA 2000), also is reviewable. See Morales v. Garland, 27 F.4th
370, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2022); Parada-Orellano v. Garland, 21 F.4th 887, 893-
944 (5th Cir. 2022). This court may make reasonable inferences as to the
bases for the BIA’s judgments. See Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d
462, 468 (5th Cir. 2005).
       As in Parada-Orellana, 21 F.4th at 894, Karvounis cites no language
suggesting that the BIA failed to apply the proper standard. Further, the BIA
cited Matter of C- V- T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7, 11 (BIA 1998), which set forth the
applicable analysis, and Parada-Orellana, 21 F.4th at 894, which set forth the
reasonable probability standard and held that the BIA need not expound on
the proper standard. Moreover, we have long recognized that the reasonable
probability standard is subsumed in the prima facie standard. See Marcello v.
I.N.S., 694 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 1983). Finally, the Respondent did not
stipulate that Karvounis was entitled to cancellation of removal as a matter
of discretion. We therefore reasonably infer that the BIA applied the correct
standard, notwithstanding the brevity of its opinion. See Manzano-Garcia,
413 F.3d at 468; see also Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 977 (5th Cir. 2023).
       Karvounis also proffers several subsidiary arguments that amount to
mere disagreements with the BIA’s factual findings and discretionary
Case: 23-60510        Document: 33-1      Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/12/2024

determinations. They are clearly unreviewable and must be dismissed. See
Nastase, 964 F.3d at 319-20; see also Tibakweitra v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 905,
910-11 (5th Cir. 2021). Finally, we decline to consider his arguments raised
for the first time in his reply brief and in footnotes. See Smith v. Sch. Bd. of
Concordia Par., 88 F.4th 588, 596 n.32 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v.
Peterson, 977 F.3d 381, 394 n.5 (5th Cir. 2020).
       Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.