Case: 20-60021 Document: 00515979727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 16, 2021 No. 20-60021 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk Aristeo Sanchez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A091 096 457 Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Aristeo Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. He argues that (1) his motion to reopen is timely and not numerically barred because he is entitled to equitable tolling; (2) the BIA * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60021 Document: 00515979727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2021 No. 20-60021 erred in failing to address his argument that he did not receive proper notice of his proceedings; (3) the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to order him removed; (4) the BIA erred in failing to consider whether he was eligible for cancellation of removal; (5) the BIA erred in not sua sponte reopening his proceedings; and (6) the BIA erroneously ignored his argument that his due process rights were violated. Sanchez also has filed a motion to remand, arguing that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), he is newly eligible for cancellation of removal. We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sanchez received proper notice of his master hearing because a notice to appear is sufficient to commence immigration proceedings in the absence of a specific time and date of an initial hearing.1 See Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689- 91 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1479-80; see also Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sanchez was not entitled to equitable tolling. An alien is entitled to equitable tolling if he shows “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Mejia v. Barr, 952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Lugo- Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016)). Although Sanchez 1 Despite Sanchez’s assertions to the contrary, the BIA explicitly rejected this argument. 2 Case: 20-60021 Document: 00515979727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2021 No. 20-60021 argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), constitutes an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling, his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals