Court Opinion

ID: 9895984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 01:00:29.970759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:11.082892
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60366        Document: 00516961068             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-60366
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                    ____________                             November 8, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon;                                Noe      Alexander
   Quintanilla-Valladares,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A206 647 191
                              Agency No. A206 647 192
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60366        Document: 00516961068             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/08/2023

           Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon, a native and citizen of Honduras,
   timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
   decision denying her motion to reconsider. 1
           We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-of-
   discretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019).
   Under this standard, Valladares-Ardon must identify either a “change in the
   law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA
   overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005)). The
   BIA’s decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or]
   utterly without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Pritchett v. INS,
   993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)).
           We lack jurisdiction to address the issue whether Valladares-Ardon
   provided adequate notice of her alleged change of address. She raised this
   issue in her motion for rehearing, but did not file a petition for review of the
   denial of that motion, and she did not repeat it in her motion for
   reconsideration. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1014, 1027 (5th Cir.
   2016) (“Separate petitions for review are required to challenge the resolution
   of each motion to reopen and reconsider.”). For the same reason, we lack
   jurisdiction to consider her contention that a deficient notice to appear
   deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Garland, 998
   F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider
   Valladares-Ardon’s argument that the BIA should have exercised its sua
   sponte authority in this case. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 647
   (5th Cir. 2010).
           DISMISSED.

           _____________________
           1
             Valladares-Ardon is joined by her son, Noe Alexander Quintanilla-Valladares, as
   a derivative applicant.