Court Opinion

ID: 9890970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:35.32279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:22.827490
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60184        Document: 00516932635             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________                                 FILED
                                                                           October 16, 2023
                                      No. 23-60184
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar
                                                                                  Clerk
                                    ____________

   Nitesh Chhetri,

                                                                                   Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A201 755 304
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Nitesh Chhetri, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions for review of
   an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to
   reopen. Motions to reopen are “particularly disfavored.” Nguhlefeh Njilefac
   v. Garland, 992 F.3d 362, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2021). Consequently, we review
   the BIA’s denial of such motions “under a highly deferential abuse-of-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60184      Document: 00516932635          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                    No. 23-60184

   discretion standard.” Ovalles v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Under this standard, we will
   affirm unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly
   without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is
   arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.”
   Nguhlefeh Njilefac, 992 F.3d at 365 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Chhetri has not met this standard.
          He shows no error in connection with the BIA’s determination that
   he had not shown that he was prejudiced by counsels’ alleged deficiencies
   and, concomitantly, shows no error in the BIA’s conclusion that he had not
   shown he was eligible for equitable tolling. See Eneugwu v. Garland, 54 F.4th
   315, 319 (5th Cir. 2022); Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 227-28 (5th Cir.
   2018). Because he does not make the prejudice showing, we need not
   consider his arguments concerning diligence. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
   U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
          As the Respondent notes, Chhetri failed to exhaust his claims
   concerning translation issues and whether the attorney who represented him
   in his first appeal should have raised ineffective assistance issues. Because
   the Respondent raises exhaustion, we will enforce this claim-processing rule
   and decline to consider these issues. See Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247,
   257 (5th Cir. 2023). The petition for review is DENIED.

                                         2