Case: 18-60777 Document: 00515560605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 11, 2020 No. 18-60777 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Karen Vanessa Elias Gil, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A099-671-138 Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Karen Vanessa Elias Gil entered the United States illegally as a child in 2006. After being served a notice to appear for removal proceedings and a subsequent notice of the time and place of the removal hearing, Gil was removed in absentia. Gil challenges her removal with a second motion to * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 18-60777 Document: 00515560605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 No. 18-60777 reopen removal proceedings. We DENY Gil’s petition to review the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. I. In 2006, Gil entered the United States illegally. When Gil was twelve years old, she was apprehended with an adult, Maria Hilda Gil Arteaga.1 Arteaga was served on behalf of Gil with a notice to appear for a removal hearing, “time and date to be set.” In response to the notice, Arteaga provided a mailing address. The immigration court mailed a subsequent notice specifying the time and date for Gil’s removal hearing, but not before Gil had moved from that address. Gil did not appear and was ordered removed in absentia. Neither Gil nor Arteaga kept officials appraised of Gil’s address for many years. In 2016, Gil challenged her removal in a motion to reopen, which the immigration judge denied. Gil did not appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Gil filed a subsequent motion to reopen, which the immigration judge also denied. In that second motion to reopen, Gil asserted that she did not receive notice to appear and that any error on Arteaga’s part in providing an effective address could not be imputed to her. The immigration judge rejected Gil’s arguments and denied the motion. Gil appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals by moving to terminate the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). The Board dismissed Gil’s appeal, concluding that notice was proper and that Gil’s motion was barred. Gil now petitions this court to review the Board’s order. 1 Arteaga is identified as Gil’s mother and as her aunt at different points in the record by Gil herself. Arteaga’s exact relationship to Gil is irrelevant to our conclusion that Gil’s second motion to reopen is procedurally barred. 2 Case: 18-60777 Document: 00515560605 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 No. 18-60777 II. We review the disposition of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals