Court Opinion

ID: 9366248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:23.679281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.992799
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60882     Document: 00516425457         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/09/2022

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

                                                                              FILED
                                  No. 21-60882                           August 9, 2022
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk

   Raymundo Galvan-Cerda,

                                                                      Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                     Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A035 508 179

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Raymundo Galvan-Cerda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us
   for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his motion to
   reopen. He was ordered deported in 1998 and filed the instant motion in
   2020 alleging that St. Cyr v. INS, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), made his deportation

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60882       Document: 00516425457             Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                       No. 21-60882

   unlawful. Galvan-Cerda does not dispute that the motion was untimely but
   argues that exceptional circumstances have prevented him from filing
   including lack of legal knowledge, bad legal advice, and financial difficulty.
   He also contends that the denial of his motion was a gross miscarriage of
   justice that warrants equitable tolling.
          Review of a motion to reopen is disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216
   F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this court reviews the denial of
   a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.”
   Id. This standard requires a ruling to stand, even if this court concludes that
   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) (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted).
          Galvan-Cerda failed to exhaust his argument that the relevant date for
   determination of whether a miscarriage of justice occurred is the date of
   deportation or removal. We lack jurisdiction to address that argument. See
   Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir 2009).
          We are not compelled to find that any of the reasons provided by
   Galvan-Cerda show an abuse of discretion by the Board in denying his
   motion. This court does not recognize a lack of legal sophistication as
   grounds for equitable tolling. See United States v. Petty, 530 F.3d 361, 366 (5th
   Cir. 2008). Similarly, reliance on incorrect legal advice has not been found
   to merit equitable tolling. See Michael v. Barr, 830 F. App’x 732, 735 (5th Cir.
   2020).1 We also find that the delay here is too long to suggest reasonable

          1
            Unpublished opinions may be considered as persuasive authority. See Ballard v.
   Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).

                                             2
Case: 21-60882      Document: 00516425457          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/09/2022

                                    No. 21-60882

   diligence. Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2020) (no diligence after
   a seven-year delay); see also Deras-Leon v. Barr, 841 F. App’x 642, 645 (5th
   Cir. 2020) (no diligence after a more than two-year delay). Additionally, the
   record does not show evidence of how any alleged financial difficulty affected
   the pursuit of legal rights and Galvan-Cerda does not dispute the Board’s
   observation that he could have pursued help from charitable or low-cost legal
   organizations.
          Finally, Galvan-Cerda’s order of deportation was lawful when it was
   entered. See Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell, 190 F.3d 299, 306-08 (5th Cir.
   1999). Even assuming that a miscarriage of justice is a basis for equitable
   tolling, no such miscarriage of justice occurred here. See Flores-Moreno v.
   Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir. 2020).
          DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3