Case: 18-11099 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-11099 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A205-131-502 ALFREDO MARQUEZ-MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Alfredomartinez Marquez, a.k.a. Alfredo Marquez-Marquez, a.k.a. Jesus Ochoa-Valenzuela, a.k.a. Alfredo Martinez Marquez, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 17, 2018) Before MARCUS, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-11099 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 2 of 10 Alfredo Marquez-Martinez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. On appeal, Marquez-Martinez argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the IJ and BIA to deny his motion based on (1) his “delay” in filing the (nevertheless timely) motion and (2) his prior attempts to apply for cancellation of removal based on relationships with two other individuals, even though the IJ specifically stated that he did not question the legitimacy of Marquez-Martinez’s current marriage. Marquez-Martinez separately contends that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his arguments because it failed to explain why either of the two proffered reasons should be held against him. The Government argues in response that we lack subject matter jurisdiction because the IJ denied the motion to reopen under its sua sponte authority and, alternatively, that the denial of Marquez-Martinez’s motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. I We address first our subject matter jurisdiction over Marquez-Martinez’s appeal. We review de novo whether we have subject matter jurisdiction. Amaya- Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, this Court may review final orders of removal. INA § 242(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). This jurisdictional 2 Case: 18-11099 Date Filed: 10/17/2018 Page: 3 of 10 grant includes the authority to review orders denying motions to reopen. See Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1261 (11th Cir. 2003). In Lenis v. United States Attorney General, however, this Court explained that “under the Administrative Procedure Act, judicial review is not available when ‘agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.’” 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)). The Lenis Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen immigration proceedings in exercise of its sua sponte authority, because the INA did not provide any “standard to govern the BIA’s exercise of its discretion” to sua sponte reopen immigration proceedings. Id. at 1293; see also Butka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278, 1283– 84 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Butka v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 299 (2017). But the Supreme Court has explained that this discretionary bar does not apply to IJ and BIA decisions reviewing statutory (as opposed to sua sponte) motions to reopen. Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2154 (2015) ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals