Court Opinion

ID: 9548246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:00:32.228931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:42.466181
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60501         Document: 00516848039               Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                          FILED
                                                                                     August 7, 2023
                                       No. 22-60501
                                      ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   Bessy Ileana Garcia-Gonzalez;
   Kevin Steven Soriano-Garcia,

                                                                                   Petitioners,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                  Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                          Petition for Review of an Order of
                          the Board of Immigration Appeals
                             Agency Nos. A209 226 195,
                                     A209 226 196
                      ______________________________
   Before Smith, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:
           Bessy Garcia-Gonzalez and her son, Kevin, 1 entered the United States
   illegally after fleeing alleged gang violence in Honduras. They sought asylum
   and related relief but were denied; their appeal to the Board of Immigration
   Appeals (“BIA”) was likewise dismissed. Garcia-Gonzalez then moved the

           _____________________
           1
            Kevin is a rider, or derivative, respondent, so this opinion generally refers only to
   Bessy, henceforth “Garcia-Gonzalez.”
Case: 22-60501      Document: 00516848039          Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60501

   BIA to reopen her and her son’s removal proceedings. The BIA denied her
   motion.
          Garcia-Gonzalez petitions for review of that denial. She also takes
   issue with the BIA’s decision not to reopen her proceedings sua sponte.
   Underpinning her appeal is her claim that she was persecuted because of her
   membership in a “particular social group” (“PSG”), which can justify relief
   under our immigration laws. Her purported PSG is the nuclear family of her
   son, who allegedly was recruited by Honduran gangs.
          This circuit has not yet addressed in detail when family-based PSGs
   are cognizable, nor do we have precise guidance from the BIA or the Depart-
   ment of Justice. Despite the lack of precision, we lack jurisdiction over the
   BIA’s refusal to reopen Garcia-Gonzalez’s proceedings sua sponte, and we
   otherwise reject her claims on the merits. We therefore dismiss the petition
   in part and deny it in part.

                                          I.
          Garcia-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the
   United States in June 2016 without proper documentation. She maintains
   that she fled Honduras with Kevin when gangs recruited Kevin and Garcia-
   Gonzalez’s nephew. That recruitment included kidnapping her nephew and
   repeatedly threatening to kill Kevin and Garcia-Gonzalez, among other acts
   of intimidation and violence directed at them and others in the community.
          After she entered the United States, border agents almost immedi-
   ately detained Garcia-Gonzalez. She was ordered to appear before an immi-
   gration judge (“I.J.”). At the first hearing, she appeared pro se; the I.J. gave
   her time to retain an attorney. She did so and was represented by Lisa Lazarte
   at the next hearing, where Garcia-Gonzalez conceded removability but stated
   that she was seeking asylum and related relief. She claimed that she had been
   persecuted in Honduras because of her membership in a PSG, which over

                                          2
Case: 22-60501         Document: 00516848039              Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                           No. 22-60501

   the course of the proceedings she defined as Kevin’s nuclear family.
          At the next hearing, the I.J. told Garcia-Gonzalez (represented by
   Lazarte) that she would need to submit biometrics within six months as part
   of her asylum application. 2 Lazarte and Garcia-Gonzalez affirmed to the I.J.
   that they understood the biometrics requirement and the deadline.
          Nevertheless, Garcia-Gonzalez missed the deadline, which Lazarte
   admitted at the next hearing. Lazarte, however, took full responsibility, stat-
   ing that the blunder “was completely [her] fault.” Lazarte also noted that
   Garcia-Gonzalez had asked her about the biometrics before the deadline.
   The I.J. still found the claims abandoned because of the lack of timely bio-
   metrics and ordered Garcia-Gonzalez removed to Honduras. He did, how-
   ever, also suggest that Garcia-Gonzalez might have an ineffective-assistance-
   of-counsel (“IAC”) claim.
          Garcia-Gonzalez retained new counsel, Martha Garza, for her appeal.
   Garza told Garcia-Gonzalez that she would be willing to file an appeal with
   the BIA, but if Garcia-Gonzalez wanted to pursue a claim against Lazarte
   based on IAC, she would need to retain different counsel. Garcia-Gonzalez
   chose to appeal to the BIA.
          On appeal, Garcia-Gonzalez asserted primarily that the I.J. had not
   given her adequate notice of the consequences of failing to provide her bio-
   metrics on time. The BIA affirmed the I.J.’s decision, finding that the I.J.
   had properly informed her of the biometrics requirement.
          The BIA also noted that Garcia-Gonzalez did not allege IAC on appeal
   or provide evidence in accordance with Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637,

          _____________________
          2
              See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d).

                                                3
Case: 22-60501         Document: 00516848039               Page: 4      Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                          No. 22-60501

   639 (B.I.A. 1988). Lozada held that motions to reopen or reconsider 3 based
   on IAC require (i) the support of an affidavit detailing what the alien and the
   attorney agreed that the attorney would do (and any related representations
   to the alien by the attorney); (ii) that notice of the allegations be given to the
   attorney, who must have an opportunity to respond; and (iii) that the motion
   reflect whether a grievance against the attorney has been filed with the
   appropriate disciplinary authorities (or else an explanation of why a grievance
   has not been filed). Id.
           After the BIA’s denial, Garcia-Gonzalez retained a third attorney
   (also her current attorney): Raed Gonzalez. In late 2020, she moved the BIA
   to reopen her removal proceedings, 4 claiming that both former attorneys
   were ineffective. She alleged that she had met the Lozada requirements; she
   asserted in the alternative that the BIA should reopen her case sua sponte
   under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
           Almost two years later, the BIA denied her motion. It noted that an
   IAC claim requires not only compliance with Lozada’s evidentiary require-
   ments but also a showing of substantial prejudice, i.e., a prima facie showing
   that the applicant would have been entitled to relief absent IAC. See Lozada,
   19 I. & N. Dec. at 638. The BIA, assuming arguendo that Garcia-Gonzalez
   had satisfied the Lozada evidentiary requirements, nevertheless determined
           _____________________
           3
             As a technical procedural point, Lozada contemplates that petitioners will bring
   IAC claims in a motion to reopen rather than on direct appeal. 19 I. & N. Dec. at 639.
   Some circuits have held that IAC claims may also be brought on direct appeal to the BIA
   and that the Lozada requirements apply equally to those. See, e.g., Ferreira v. Barr, 939 F.3d
   44, 46 (1st Cir. 2019); Yang v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2007); Correa-Rivera v.
   Holder, 706 F.3d 1128, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2013) (forgiving the petitioner’s “procedural
   misstep” because “[a]ppeals asserting [IAC] claims . . . are effectively motions to
   reopen”).
           4
             An alien may generally file one motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C.
   § 1229a(c)(7)(A).

                                                 4
Case: 22-60501          Document: 00516848039              Page: 5       Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                           No. 22-60501

   that she had not made a prima facie showing on any of her claims.
           Garcia-Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding-of-removal claims, which
   were based on the gangs’ alleged persecution of Kevin’s nuclear family, failed
   because she had not presented any evidence that her son’s nuclear family was
   a cognizable PSG for purposes of asylum or withholding of removal. 5 In par-
   ticular, the BIA found that, while Kevin’s nuclear family “may be distinct
   within [Garcia-Gonzalez’s] community, she ha[d] not presented sufficient
   evidence to conclude that this group is perceived, considered, or recognized
   as a group, as a whole, by Honduran society.” In other words, she did not
   show that Kevin’s nuclear family was viewed “as separate from the rest of
   the society in question.”
            Next, the BIA determined that Garcia-Gonzalez did not make a prima
   facie showing that she was entitled to relief under the Convention Against
   Torture (“CAT”), because she did not provide evidence that she would be
   tortured or that the Honduran government would acquiesce in her torture. 6
           Finally, the BIA declined to reopen the removal proceedings sua
   sponte, because Garcia-Gonzalez’s case was not an “exceptional situation”
   that would justify such relief.

                                                 II.
           We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discre-
   tion. 7 We uphold the BIA’s decision unless it is “capricious, irrational,
   utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous
           _____________________
           5
               See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(b)(3)(A), 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
           6
               See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1).
           7
            Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Penalva v. Sessions,
   884 F.3d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 2018), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Flores-Moreno v.
   Barr, 971 F.3d 541 (5th Cir. 2020)).

                                                  5
Case: 22-60501          Document: 00516848039             Page: 6     Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                           No. 22-60501

   interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures
   from regulations or established policies.” 8
          We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo, Diaz v. Sessions,
   894 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2018), and its factual findings for substantial evi-
   dence, Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (per
   curiam) (citing Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2007)).

                                                III.
          Garcia-Gonzalez raises three issues in her petition for review of the
   BIA’s decision not to reopen:
          First, whether the BIA erred in finding that Garcia-Gonzalez had not
   made a prima facie claim for asylum and withholding of removal under
   8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231(b)(3). In particular, whether the BIA incorrectly
   held that she had failed to provide evidence that she belonged to a cognizable
   PSG. Second, whether the BIA erred in finding that Garcia-Gonzalez had
   not made a prima facie claim for relief under the CAT. The BIA concluded
   that she had neither claimed past torture nor presented evidence that she
   would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Honduran government.
   Third, whether the BIA erred in not reopening Garcia-Gonzalez’s proceed-
   ings sua sponte.

                                                A.
          Garcia-Gonzalez’s strongest argument is her first: The nuclear family
   of her son is a cognizable PSG in the context of withholding of removal and
   asylum. She correctly notes that alleged PSGs must be (i) characterized by
   an immutable trait 9; (ii) definable with reasonable particularity; and (iii) soci-

          _____________________
          8
              Id. (quoting Penalva, 884 F.3d at 523).
          9
              Literal immutability is not required. The characteristic only “must be one that

                                                 6
Case: 22-60501           Document: 00516848039             Page: 7       Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                            No. 22-60501

   ally distinct. Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014). She
   asserts that the PSG of her son’s nuclear family satisfies all three elements.
           The social-distinction requirement is the only one contested here.
   The BIA found that while families can sometimes be cognizable PSGs, 10
   Garcia-Gonzalez had failed to prove that her son’s nuclear family was “per-
   ceived, considered, or recognized as a group, as a whole, by Honduran soci-
   ety.” See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 216–17 (B.I.A. 2014)). Put
   another way, she did not adduce anything demonstrating that Honduran soci-
   ety “perceives or recognizes her proffered group as separate from the rest of
   the society in question.” See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 230–31
   (5th Cir. 2019).
           This circuit has not established clear guidelines for when family-based
   PSGs are cognizable, especially in the context of gang violence. We typically
   deny petitions in cases involving gang activity directed at a family on the basis
   that petitioners did not prove nexus. For example, petitioners may have es-
   tablished only personal, criminal, or economic motives for a gang’s conduct,
   and conduct so motivated is not cognizable persecution. 11
           That avenue is not available here, however, because the BIA made its
   decision on the sole ground that Garcia-Gonzalez had not proved social
   distinction. See Iruegas-Valdez v. Yates, 846 F.3d 806, 811 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (noting that issues not addressed by the BIA are not properly before the

           _____________________
   the members of the group either cannot change, or should not be required to change
   because it is fundamental to their individual identities or consciences.” Matter of Acosta,
   19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (B.I.A. 1985).
           10
                See Pena Oseguera v. Barr, 936 F.3d 249, 250–51 (5th Cir. 2019).
           11
              See, e.g., Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 2015); Iglesias-
   Bonilla v. Garland, No. 21-60264, 2022 WL 102041, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan. 10, 2022) (unpub-
   lished) (per curiam).

                                                  7
Case: 22-60501      Document: 00516848039           Page: 8     Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                     No. 22-60501

   reviewing court). We therefore must answer the question whether Garcia-
   Gonzalez adequately showed that her proposed PSG was socially distinct
   (and therefore cognizable).
          The guidance we have from the BIA is minimal. In explaining social
   distinction, the BIA has clarified that “literal” visibility, i.e., physical indi-
   cators of membership in the group, is not required. M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.
   Dec. at 238. Instead, social distinction is present where “those with a com-
   mon immutable characteristic are set apart, or distinct, from other persons
   within the society in some significant way.” Id. “In other words, if the com-
   mon immutable characteristic were known, those with the characteristic in
   the society in question would be meaningfully distinguished from those who
   do not have it.” Id. The relevant viewpoint is that of the society as a whole,
   not that of the persecutors. Id. at 241–42.
          Regarding family-based PSGs specifically, the BIA has consistently
   recognized that families can be PSGs in at least some circumstances.          See
   Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211, 233 (B.I.A. 1985); M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.
   Dec. at 246.
          Beyond that, however, the BIA has provided little guidance that
   remains operative. In 2017, the BIA published Matter of L-E-A- (“L-E-A-
   I”), in which it reiterated that family can be a cognizable PSG but also stated
   that “a claim based on family membership will depend on the nature and
   degree of the relationships involved and how those relationships are regarded
   by the society in question.” 27 I. & N. Dec. 40, 43 (B.I.A. 2017). Accord-
   ingly, determining whether a family-based PSG is cognizable is a “fact-based
   inquiry made on a case-by-case basis.” Id. at 42. Applying that reasoning,
   the BIA concluded that the applicant was a member of a PSG comprising
   his father’s immediate family. Id. at 43.
          But in 2019, the Department of Justice reversed course. The Attorney

                                           8
Case: 22-60501        Document: 00516848039          Page: 9   Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                      No. 22-60501

   General vacated the relevant portion of L-E-A- I and explained that most pro-
   posed family-based PSGs fail the distinction requirement, because the “fact
   that ‘nuclear families’ or some other widely recognized family unit generally
   car[ries] societal importance says nothing about whether a specific nuclear
   family would be ‘recognizable by society at large.’” Matter of L-E-A- (“L-E-
   A- II”), 27 I. & N. Dec. 581, 594 (Att’y Gen. 2019) (quoting Matter of A-B-,
   27 I. & N. Dec. 316, 336 (Att’y Gen. 2018)). The Attorney General also rea-
   soned that the narrower construction was more consistent with congressional
   intent, given that Congress would have made the nuclear family an expressly
   protected ground if it had meant for it to be a cognizable PSG per se. Id.
   at 593.
             With the advent of a new Administration, the Department of Justice
   changed its mind yet again. Explaining that L-E-A- II was inconsistent with
   the decisions of several courts of appeals, the Attorney General vacated
   L-E-A- II. See Matter of L-E-A- (“L-E-A- III”), 28 I. & N. Dec. 304, 304–05
   (Att’y Gen. 2021). He did not, however, lay out a new standard. Instead, he
   stated that rulemaking was the proper procedure for “‘complex’
   immigration-law question[s] of ‘great importance.’” Id. at 305 (quoting Mat-
   ter of Compean, 25 I. & N. Dec. 1, 2 (Att’y Gen. 2009)).
             In the wake of the whiplash, we are left with L-E-A- I and its general
   case-by-case standard.
             And, years later and contrary to indications by the Executive, we are
   still waiting for the government to issue the rule envisaged by L-E-A- III. On
   February 2, 2021, the President directed the Attorney General and the
   Secretary of Homeland Security to “promulgate joint regulations . . . addres-
   sing the circumstances in which a person should be considered a member of
   a ‘particular social group.’” See Exec. Order No. 14,010, 86 Fed. Reg. 8267,
   8271 (Feb. 2, 2021). The President set a deadline of 270 days. Id. That

                                           9
Case: 22-60501      Document: 00516848039          Page: 10    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60501

   deadline lapsed in late 2021—almost two years ago. We do not have even a
   draft of the proposed rule. See, e.g., 88 Fed. Reg. 10966, 11054 (Feb. 22,
   2023).
            Despite the lack of executive guidance, and despite our being pre-
   sented with an opportunity to clarify for this circuit the contours of cogniza-
   ble family-based PSGs, the United States urges us to rule narrowly and deny
   Garcia-Gonzalez’s petition on the ground that she did not present any evi-
   dence at all regarding the social distinction of her proposed PSG. Thus, the
   Department of Justice issued guidance, vacated that guidance, was instructed
   to provide new guidance, failed to provide said guidance, and now asks us to
   refrain from providing any meaningful guidance ourselves. Nevertheless, the
   United States is correct that we may dispose of this case on narrow grounds,
   and we do. We therefore leave for another day the task of more precisely
   delineating the cognizability of family-based PSGs and the evidence needed
   to prove them.
            An alien seeking asylum or withholding of removal has the burden to
   demonstrate eligibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)–(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C);
   8 C.F.R. §§ 208.13(a), 208.16(b). Garcia-Gonzalez failed to satisfy her bur-
   den. In her application, she did not proffer any evidence of the social distinc-
   tion of her family in Honduran society or of the social saliency of the nuclear
   family unit in Honduran society generally. See W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec.
   at 216–17. Even in her briefing before this court, Garcia-Gonzalez offers
   nothing more than the conclusory assertion that “family ties are a highly rec-
   ognizable trait in” Honduras.
            There is no per se rule that every family-based PSG is cognizable.
   Congress did not make persecution based on “family” a statutorily enumer-
   ated ground for asylum or withholding of removal.                 See 8 U.S.C.
   §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)–(ii), 1231(b)(3)(C). The BIA instructs that the analysis

                                         10
Case: 22-60501        Document: 00516848039               Page: 11        Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                           No. 22-60501

   for family-based PSGs is case-by-case and depends “on the nature and
   degree of the relationships involved and how those relationships are regarded
   by the society in question.” L-E-A- I, 27 I. & N. Dec. at 42–43. Applicants
   for asylum or withholding of removal may not merely propose a family-based
   PSG without evidence of society’s perception of the family in question. To
   the extent that other circuits have appeared to suggest otherwise, 12 we
   respectfully disagree.
           Garcia-Gonzalez therefore was required to put forward at least some
   evidence of the social distinction of her son’s nuclear family in Honduran
   society. Because she did not, she failed to make out a prima facie case of
   eligibility for withholding of removal or asylum. The consequence is that she
   failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by allegedly ineffective counsel.
   The BIA did not err in denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her
   withholding-of-removal and asylum claims.

                                                 B.
           Garcia-Gonzalez next claims that the BIA erred in concluding that
   she had not made a prima facie claim for relief under the CAT. Specifically,
   she points to her Form I-589, on which she claimed that the Honduran police
   (i) would not help her; (ii) “have always been affiliated with gangs” and
   “would not protect people against the gangs”; and (iii) had been infiltrated
   by a gang (the gang was allegedly aware that her nephew had filed a police
           _____________________
           12
              See, e.g., Gebremichael v. INS, 10 F.3d 28, 36 (1st Cir. 1993) (“There can, in fact,
   be no plainer example of a social group based on common, identifiable and immutable
   characteristics than that of the nuclear family.”); Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 194
   (4th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n individual’s membership in her nuclear family is a particular social
   group.” (citing Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949 (4th Cir. 2015))); Rios v.
   Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he family remains the quintessential par-
   ticular social group.” (citing M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 240)).

                                                 11
Case: 22-60501     Document: 00516848039           Page: 12    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60501

   report). Her reply brief also suggests that the BIA should have taken judicial
   notice of country conditions reports and similar materials, which would have
   corroborated her testimony. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A)(1)–(3).
          The CAT requires petitioners to show that it is “more likely than
   not” that they would be tortured if they were removed to their home country.
   Id. § 1208.16(c)(2); Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478, 486 (5th Cir.
   2022). Moreover, such torture must be state action, i.e., “inflicted by, or at
   the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of,” a person “acting
   in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
          Acquiescence, in turn, requires prior “awareness” or “willful blind-
   ness” of the torture and a “breach” of “legal responsibility to intervene to
   prevent” the torture. Id. § 1208.18(a)(7). Inability to intervene is not acqui-
   escence; likewise, mere failure to prevent the torture is not necessarily acqui-
   escence. Id. And a foreign state’s “failure to apprehend the persons threat-
   ening the alien” or “the lack of financial resources to eradicate the threat or
   risk of torture” does not establish state action. Aviles-Tavera, 22 F.4th at 486
   (quoting Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 343, 351 (5th Cir. 2006)).
          Garcia-Gonzalez offers nothing more than her own conclusory state-
   ments and suppositions in support of her claim. While she posits that the
   Honduran police are in cahoots with the gangs, she does not proffer any evi-
   dence that her local police would acquiesce in her torture. To the contrary,
   as the government notes, she alleges that the police did respond when her
   brother was beaten, just not as vigorously or with as many officers as Garcia-
   Gonzalez would have liked.
          The BIA did not err in finding that Garcia-Gonzalez had not “pre-
   sented evidence demonstrating that she would be tortured or that the Hon-
   duran government would acquiesce” in that torture. It thus did not err in
   concluding that she had not made a prima facie claim of relief under the CAT.

                                         12
Case: 22-60501     Document: 00516848039           Page: 13    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60501

          To the extent that Garcia-Gonzalez contends that the BIA should
   have taken administrative notice of certain public information, she has for-
   feited that argument by raising it for the first time in her reply brief. United
   States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). But even if she had
   not, her argument would still fail.
          The BIA may indeed engage in limited factfinding through adminis-
   trative notice, including notice of official documents and government sources
   and facts ascertainable therefrom. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A). But it has
   merely the power to do so, not the obligation. See id. Garcia-Gonzalez does
   not cite any authority for her proposition that the BIA had an affirmative
   obligation—completely sua sponte—to consider documents or information
   external to the record.
          Even if the BIA did have such an obligation, the information that
   Garcia-Gonzalez pulls from the 2020 State Department report on human
   rights in Honduras 13 does not establish state action. To the contrary, the
   report says on page 2 that the government has investigated and prosecuted
   numerous instances of gang-instigated violence, and on page 3 that gangs
   direct violence and intimidation toward government officials themselves.

                                         C.
          Garcia-Gonzalez contends that the BIA committed “legal error” in
   declining to reopen her proceeding sua sponte. She concedes that Fifth Cir-
   cuit precedent has consistently held that we lack jurisdiction over denials of
   sua sponte reopening, but she attempts to distinguish her petition by asserting
   that she is bringing a due process challenge—IAC—over which we do have

          _____________________
          13
            U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Democracy, H.R. and Lab., Honduras 2020
   Human           Rights         Report         (2020),         www.state.gov/wp-
   content/uploads/2021/03/HONDURAS-2020-HUMAN-RIGHTS-REPORT.pdf.

                                          13
Case: 22-60501        Document: 00516848039              Page: 14       Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                          No. 22-60501

   jurisdiction because it is a mixed question of law and fact. Garcia-Gonzalez
   also urges us to deem our adverse precedent wrongly decided and to adopt
   the reasoning in Chehazeh v. Attorney General of the United States, 666 F.3d
   118 (3d Cir. 2012). Garcia-Gonzalez concludes that sua sponte reopening is
   required here because IAC rendered her case an “exceptional circum-
   stance” that ended in a “gross miscarriage of justice.”
           The Immigration and Nationality Act generally allows aliens to file
   one motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). But the BIA’s regulations
   also allow the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
   That decision is discretionary: Although the BIA “may” reopen proceed-
   ings, that is never required. Id.; see also Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 288
   (5th Cir. 2022).
           Given the entirely discretionary nature of sua sponte reopening, this
   court has repeatedly held that circuit courts lack jurisdiction over denials by
   the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte. The rationale is that the regula-
   tions provide federal courts with “no legal standard against which to judge”
   the BIA’s decision. 14
           Garcia-Gonzalez’s invocation of Supreme Court cases 15 is unavailing.
   They all predate Eneugwu (and Mejia and Hernandez-Castillo, to boot), so the
   rule of orderliness forecloses her argument. 16 Moreover, Eneugwu consid-

           _____________________
           14
              Eneugwu v. Garland, 54 F.4th 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Mejia v. Whitaker,
   913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019)); see also Mejia, 913 F.3d at 490; Hernandez-Castillo v.
   Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017); Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 250
   (5th Cir. 2004).
           15
            Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015); Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010); Dada
   v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985).
           16
             “Under our rule of orderliness, ‘one panel of our court may not overturn another
   panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law, such as by a statutory amend-
   ment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.’” Mercado v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 276, 279

                                                14
Case: 22-60501        Document: 00516848039               Page: 15       Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                          No. 22-60501

   ered the Supreme Court cases that Garcia-Gonzalez cites and concluded that
   they did “not undermine our holdings that we do not have jurisdiction to
   review refusals to reopen sua sponte.” 17
           Turning to Garcia-Gonzalez’s due process claim, it is difficult to dis-
   cern her precise argument. Generously assuming that she is alleging a due
   process violation in the reopening proceedings themselves, her claim still
   fails. Assuming jurisdiction exists over a constitutional claim related to her
   motion, “there is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to reopen,” given its
   entirely discretionary nature. Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547,
   551 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Mejia, 913 F.3d at 490 (citing Altamirano-Lopez,
   435 F.3d at 550–51). Thus, even if Garcia-Gonzalez were eligible for discre-
   tionary relief, “the denial of discretionary relief does not rise to the level of a
   constitutional violation.” Finlay v. INS, 210 F.3d 556, 557 (5th Cir. 2000).
           To the extent Garcia-Gonzalez is asserting a deprivation of due pro-
   cess in the underlying removal proceedings, and assuming that she can bring
   that claim through the current petition rather than through one for review of
   the underlying order, she still would not prevail. Attempting to raise a due
   process claim through an argument about the BIA’s failure to reopen sua
   sponte does not bring the claim within our jurisdiction.
           Essentially the same posture was present in Diaz, which held that we

           _____________________
   (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intel. Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2008)).
   The rule of orderliness precludes Garcia-Gonzalez’s request that we adopt the Third Cir-
   cuit’s standard for assessing denials of sua sponte reopening as well as her extended discus-
   sion of why her case is an “exceptional situation” that resulted in a “gross miscarriage of
   justice.”
           17
             54 F.4th at 320 (“The two most recent of the cited Supreme Court opinions
   expressly declined to reject the position of this court and of other circuits that refusal to
   reopen sua sponte is not reviewable.” (first citing Mata, 576 U.S. at 143; and then citing
   Kucana, 558 U.S. at 251 n.18)).

                                                15
Case: 22-60501     Document: 00516848039           Page: 16    Date Filed: 08/07/2023

                                    No. 22-60501

   still lack jurisdiction over the BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte.
   894 F.3d at 228. The court noted, “The thrust of Diaz’s petition is that . . .
   he was denied due process because his counsel was ineffective as to the appli-
   cation for cancellation of removal. Yet Diaz does not petition for review of
   the application for cancellation of removal; instead, he petitions for review of
   his motion to reopen.” Id. at 226. That did not change the fact that we lacked
   jurisdiction over the BIA’s decision not to reopen its proceedings sua sponte.
   Id. at 228.
          The petition for review of the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen is
   DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

                                          16