Case: 21-60798 Document: 00516784868 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 13, 2023 No. 21-60798 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Cleiton Alexandre-Matias, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. 098 885 746 Before Wiener, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge: In 2005, Cleiton Alexandre-Matias, a native and citizen of Brazil, was ordered removed in absentia. In 2018, he moved to reopen and rescind the removal order, and an immigration judge (IJ) denied his request. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA dismissed his appeal. He now petitions for review of that dismissal. This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). “We review the denial of a motion to reopen under Case: 21-60798 Document: 00516784868 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 No. 21-60798 a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Fuentes-Pena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 827, 829 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 203–04 (5th Cir. 2017) (describing highly deferential standard of review). “Motions to reopen immigration proceedings are disfavored because as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Fuentes- Pena, 917 F.3d at 829 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 517. The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzalez, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). “The applicant has the burden of showing that the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion.” Id. In this appeal, Alexandre-Matias lodges several challenges to the denial of his motion to reopen. For the first time, he contends that the BIA and the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the record does not show that his notice to appear (NTA) was ever filed with the immigration court, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a). We have previously explained that § 1003.14 “is not jurisdictional,” but is “a claim-processing rule.” Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 691 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479–80 (2021). 1 Thus, Alexandre-Matias’s jurisdictional challenge fails. And because he 1 See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 n.2 (5th Cir. 2021) (confirming that Pierre-Paul’s jurisdictional holding remains good law). 2 Case: 21-60798 Document: 00516784868 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2023 No. 21-60798 raises …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals