Court Opinion

ID: 9384181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-01 00:00:48.436334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.248954
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60178         Document: 00516697564              Page: 1       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-60178
                                     Summary Calendar                                       FILED
                                                                                      March 31, 2023
                                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
   Abiezer Ornan Melgar-Lara,                                                               Clerk

                                                                                       Petitioner,

                                              versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                                     Respondent.

                          Petition for Review of an Order of the
                              Board of Immigration Appeals
                                Agency No. A077 693 528

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Abiezer Ornan Melgar-Lara, a native and citizen of Honduras, timely
   petitions us for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision
   denying his motion to reopen. He entered the United States in 1999 and was
   ordered removed in absentia in 2000, but moved to reopen his case in 2020.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60178        Document: 00516697564              Page: 2       Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                          No. 22-60178

           Motions to reopen are disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487,
   496 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this court reviews the denial of a motion
   to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Id. This
   standard requires a ruling to stand, even if this court concludes that it is
   erroneous, “so long as it is not 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.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404
   F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
           We do not find that Melgar-Lara’s motion should have been
   considered because of any issues with the Notice to Appear or notice of his
   removal hearing. The record reflects that he did not keep the immigration
   court informed about his address, as is his duty. See Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,
   560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009); Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d
   199, 205 (5th Cir. 2017). He therefore waived his right to notice. See Spagnol-
   Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 806 (5th Cir. 2021). 1
           Further, we do not find that Melgar-Lara’s motion should have been
   considered because of a change in country conditions. His affidavit indicates
   that he fled to the United State in 1999 based on fear of death from gang
   violence, so we do not accept his argument that gang violence was not a
   serious issue at that time.
           Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments regarding his
   unexhausted argument that his proceedings should be reopened due to
   exceptional circumstances, see Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th

           1
              Melgar-Lara provided an address in Florida despite the fact that he was living in
   Pennsylvania. The notices sent to the Florida address contained a scrivener error, which
   he protests. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that irrelevant because Melgar-Lara never
   gave his proper address. He has not explained why he gave the Florida address and who
   lived there, so he has not established an error by the IJ adopted by the BIA.

                                                2
Case: 22-60178     Document: 00516697564          Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/31/2023

                                   No. 22-60178

   Cir. 2001), and his argument regarding sua sponte reopening.            See
   Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2006).
         DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                        3