Case: 18-60860 Document: 00515229937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60860 December 10, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk BLANCA DOMINGUES, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 065 737 Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Blanca Domingues, a native and citizen of Honduras, was ordered removed from the United States, in absentia, after failing to appear for a hearing during her removal proceedings. She petitions only for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her motion for reconsideration of its dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60860 Document: 00515229937 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019 No. 18-60860 “We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider under a highly deferential abuse[-]of[-]discretion standard.” Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Under that standard, “[t]he court will not find an abuse of discretion unless the decision is capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and are upheld “unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion and is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which require[s] [its] own petition[] for review.” Jaquez-Vega v. Gonzales, 140 F. App’x 547, 548 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Therefore, because Domingues did not separately petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal from the IJ’s denial of her motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider contentions challenging that ruling but not raised in the present petition. See id. (citations omitted). Additionally, Domingues failed to exhaust her claims that her due- process rights were violated, that there was a violation of the United Nations Refugee Convention, that the IJ never inquired about whether she provided her address before ordering her removal in absentia, that safeguards should have been in place to protect her fundamental rights because she was a victim of abuse, and that the record did not show whether she was advised of her right to counsel. We therefore similarly lack jurisdiction over these issues. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting, inter alia, that petitioners “fail to exhaust their administrative remedies as to an issue if they ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals