Court Opinion

ID: 9399918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 18:00:54.273379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.855950
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60649        Document: 00516776027             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/06/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60649                                   June 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   Jenny Elizabeth Gonzalez-Luna,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A088 019 602
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jenny Elizabeth Gonzalez-Luna, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying
   her motion to reopen. We review the BIA’s decision and consider that of the

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60649        Document: 00516776027        Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                    No. 22-60649

   IJ only insofar as it influences the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224
   (5th Cir. 2018).
          Because motions to reopen are “disfavored,” the denial of such a
   motion is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
   standard.” Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard requires a
   ruling to stand so long as “it is not capricious, without foundation in the
   evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result
   of any perceptible rational approach.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
   citation omitted). Gonzalez-Luna has not met this standard.
          Gonzalez-Luna’s argument that her notice to appear (NTA) was
   defective, and thus did not establish jurisdiction over her proceedings
   because the initial NTA did not include the time and date of her hearing, is
   unavailing. See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Her related challenge to the BIA’s rejection of her equitable tolling argument
   likewise lacks merit. See id. Insofar as she argues that the 90-day deadline
   was inapplicable because she was challenging jurisdiction, this argument fails
   because this court has rejected the proposition that a jurisdictional claim
   regarding a defective NTA may be raised at any time. See Flores-Abarca v.
   Barr, 937 F.3d 473, 477–78 (5th Cir. 2019).
          We lack jurisdiction to consider her challenge to the BIA’s decision
   not to exercise its discretion sua sponte to reopen the proceedings. See
   Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206 (5th Cir. 2017). Finally, her
   due process argument fails because she has no liberty interest in reopening,
   which is a discretionary form of relief. See id. at 205–06. Moreover, she has
   not shown that the lack of a hearing date in the initial NTA prejudiced her
   because her argument that the allegedly defective NTA deprived the
   immigration court of jurisdiction over her proceedings is, as explained earlier,

                                              2
Case: 22-60649      Document: 00516776027          Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/06/2023

                                    No. 22-60649

   unavailing. See Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 & n.2; Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954
   F.3d 812, 813 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam).
          The petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED in
   part for want of jurisdiction.

                                             3