Case: 19-60460 Document: 00515527115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 14, 2020 No. 19-60460 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PATRICIA GRICEL MARTINEZ-MANZANAREZ, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089 846 756 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Patricia Gricel Martinez-Manzanarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an order of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her motion to reopen her immigration proceedings and rescind an in absentia removal order that issued in 2011. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 19-60460 Document: 00515527115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2020 No. 19-60460 As a preliminary matter, we have jurisdiction to review only the motion for reconsideration because Martinez-Manzanarez did not separately petition for review of the order dismissing her appeal. See Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006. We also lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez- Manzanarez’s claim that she did not receive the requisite statutory notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(1) and related claims because she failed to raise those claims in her proceedings before the BIA. See Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004); Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). As she recognizes, her claim that the notice to appear served on her failed to confer jurisdiction on the immigration court based on the decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), is foreclosed by our decision in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, the only issue before this court is the BIA’s refusal to reconsider its determination that Martinez-Manzanarez failed to exercise sufficient due diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the deadline for filing her motion to reopen and rescind the in absentia order, an issue we review “under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). For the BIA to grant a motion to reconsider, the alien must “identify a change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked.” Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To obtain equitable tolling, the movant must establish (1) that she pursued her rights diligently and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in her way and prevented timely filing. Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir. 2016). Martinez-Manzanarez argues that the BIA’s determination that she failed to exercise sufficient due diligence to warrant equitable ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals