Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland


Case: 22-60307 Document: 00516814727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED July 10, 2023 No. 22-60307 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Samuel De Jesus Argueta-Hernandez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A094 753 033 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: When does an order of removal become ‘final’? The answer matters because Samuel De Jesus Argueta-Hernandez asks us to review the BIA’s order denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Congress has, however, limited our jurisdiction to final orders “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1691 (2020) (citation omitted). And it imposed another condition: the petition must be filed within 30 days of that order. Since Argueta-Hernandez’s Case: 22-60307 Document: 00516814727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 No. 22-60307 petition does not meet these requirements, we DISMISS it for lack of jurisdiction. I. Argueta-Hernandez is a native of El Salvador. He first entered the United States around 2003 and was ordered removed in 2007. He then returned three more times—in 2010, 2018, and 2019. This appeal concerns his 2019 visit. In September 2019, the federal government reinstated Argueta- Hernandez’s 2007 removal order.1 This time, Argueta-Hernandez expressed fear of going back to El Salvador. He claimed he was running from MS-13, a notorious El Salvadorian gang. The gang asked him to store and transport contraband, and pay a quota. They did so, allegedly, because Argueta- Hernandez was a Christian and could travel without arousing suspicion. When he refused, gang members threatened to kill him and his family. Local authorities did little to help. Argueta-Hernandez sought withholding of removal and CAT relief. An immigration judge denied his application and, on April 27, 2022, the BIA dismissed his appeal. Argueta-Hernandez petitioned for review on May 26, 2022. _____________________ 1 Illegal reentrants undergo an expedited removal process. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). In sum, “the agency obtains the alien’s prior order of removal, confirms the alien’s identity, determines whether the alien’s reentry was unauthorized, provides the alien with written notice of its determination, allows the alien to contest that determination, and then reinstates the order.” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 141 S. Ct. 2271, 2272 (2021) (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.8(a)–(c), 1241.8(a)–(c)). 2 Case: 22-60307 Document: 00516814727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2023 No. 22-60307 II. Jurisdiction to review removal decisions is a creature of statute. Congress has limited that jurisdiction in several ways. We may review “final order[s] of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We may also review “all questions of law and fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien” but only if there is a final order of removal. § 1252(b)(9). Either way, the noncitizen must seek review “no[] later than …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals