Court Opinion

ID: 9383146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 18:00:37.43367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.904301
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60324         Document: 00516693202             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                       No. 22-60324                              March 29, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                      Clerk

   Jenny Maricela Alas-Elias,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A098 680 641
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jenny Maricela Alas-Elias, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
   petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
   her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying her motion to reopen and
   application for cancellation of removal.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60324      Document: 00516693202           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/29/2023

                                     No. 22-60324

          Our court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. E.g., Vetcher v. Barr, 953 F.3d 361,
   366 (5th Cir. 2020). We review denial of a motion to reopen “under a highly
   deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland, 40
   F.4th 247, 248 (5th Cir. 2022).
          Alas maintains the BIA erred in denying her challenge to her notice to
   appear. Because she failed to provide an address at which she could be
   reached, she may not reopen her in absentia proceedings on the ground that
   her notice to appear was defective. E.g., id. at 249 (“[A]n alien forfeits his
   right to notice by failing to provide a viable mailing address and cannot seek
   to reopen the removal proceedings and rescind the in abstentia removal order
   for lack of notice”. (citation omitted)).
          She also contends the BIA erroneously determined: she failed to show
   her children would experience the requisite level of hardship for cancellation
   of removal; and that sua sponte regulatory reopening was not warranted. Our
   court lacks jurisdiction to review these assertions. E.g., Castillo-Gutierrez v.
   Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022) (stating hardship determination
   “is a discretionary and authoritative decision . . . beyond [this court’s]
   review”); Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (explaining this court lacks jurisdiction to consider BIA’s refusal to reopen
   sua sponte because ruling is discretionary).
          DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                          2