Court Opinion

ID: 9381323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 18:00:59.182999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:31.684926
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60820         Document: 00516685015             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023

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

                                      ____________                              FILED
                                                                          March 22, 2023
                                       No. 21-60820                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                           Clerk
                                     ____________

   Alejandro Castillo-Trevino,

                                                                                    Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                 Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A018 950 320
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Petitioner Alejandro Castillo-Trevino, a native and citizen of Mexico,
   petitions us to review a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
   dismissing his appeal. Castillo-Trevino pleaded guilty to a felony in 2004 and
   was ordered removed in 2005. In 2021, Castillo-Trevino filed a pro se motion
   before the immigration judge (IJ) to reopen his removal proceedings. The IJ
   declined to equitably toll the 90-day limitations period under 8 U.S.C. §
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60820      Document: 00516685015          Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                    No. 21-60820

   1229a(c)(7)(C) and denied the motion to reopen pursuant to the departure
   bar under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
          We consider the IJ’s decision in our review because the BIA adopted
   it. See Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016). We review
   the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Flores-Moreno v. Barr,
   971 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction to review “whether
   an undisputed set of facts demonstrates diligence on the part of an alien
   requesting equitable tolling.” Londono-Gonzalez v. Barr, 978 F.3d 965, 967
   (5th Cir. 2020); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
          Equitable tolling is only warranted if the Petitioner demonstrates “(1)
   that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
   extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”
   Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 545 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). The diligence element “requires the litigant to establish that he
   pursued his rights with reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible
   diligence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The IJ and BIA did not err in determining that Castillo-Trevino failed
   to demonstrate the diligence required for equitable tolling. See Flores-Moreno,
   971 F.3d at 545. The legal remedy of a motion to reopen has existed since well
   before Castillo-Trevino was ordered removed in 2005. See Garcia-Carias v.
   Holder, 697 F.3d 257, 261 (5th Cir. 2012) (recounting the remedy’s history).
   Castillo-Trevino fails to adequately describe his attempts to obtain legal as-
   sistance—during the 16 years between his removal and motion to reopen—
   and why he would not have learned of a basis for filing his motion to reopen
   earlier. He provides no reason for waiting until 2021 to act on his cited
   changes in law. See Londono-Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 968 (upholding the BIA’s
   denial of equitable tolling when the motion to reopen was filed more than
   three years after issuance of the pertinent case law).

                                          2
Case: 21-60820     Document: 00516685015           Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/22/2023

                                    No. 21-60820

          Castillo-Trevino’s motion does not qualify as a statutory motion to
   reopen under § 1229a(c)(7) because there is no equitable tolling here. See
   Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 342-43. The BIA and IJ were correct in finding
   that the departure bar applied. See Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288, 299-300
   (5th Cir. 2009); § 1003.23(b)(1). We therefore need not address Castillo-
   Trevino’s remaining contentions, but we note that this case does not present
   exceptional circumstances warranting an appointment of counsel. See Ulmer
   v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).
          The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         3