Court Opinion

ID: 9366232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:03:41.84002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.922018
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60786     Document: 00516420292          Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

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

                                                                             FILED
                                                                        August 4, 2022
                                  No. 21-60786                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                             Clerk

   Silvana Ferreira Alves-Ribeiro,

                                                                        Petitioner,

                                       versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                      Respondent.

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                            Agency No. A098 886 535

   Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Silvana Ferreira Alves-Ribeiro, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions
   for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision denying her
   motion to reconsider its dismissal of her appeal. That appeal concerned an

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60786      Document: 00516420292          Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/04/2022

                                    No. 21-60786

   Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen and to rescind a
   removal entered in absentia in 2006.
          We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider under the
   highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.          Hernandez-Castillo v.
   Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 2017). Under this standard, we “must
   affirm the BIA’s decision as 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.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560
   F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009).
          It is undisputed that Alves-Ribeiro filed her motion to reopen well
   beyond the 90-day time frame established by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
   Nevertheless, Alves-Ribeiro contends that she is entitled to reconsideration
   based on changed country conditions in Brazil. Because Alves-Ribeiro has
   failed to show a “material change,” the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
   denying her motion to reconsider. See Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 509–
   10 (5th Cir. 2018).
          We have no basis to address Alves-Ribeiro’s arguments that she has
   demonstrated the elements of an asylum claim or that the IJ acted improperly
   as these arguments can only be considered in the context of the motion, and
   the motion has no basis without changed country conditions. See 8 C.F.R.
   § 1003.23(b)(4)(i). To the extent she argues that the BIA committed a due
   process violation by denying her motion, we have foreclosed such an
   argument. See Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 260–61 (5th Cir. 2020).
          We dismiss the argument that Alves-Ribeiro is eligible for cancellation
   of removal because of exceptional hardship, as this claim was not argued
   before the BIA and so is unexhausted. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d
   642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010).
          PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

                                          2