USCA11 Case: 19-15096 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-15096 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A075-340-285 ADRIANA VENEGAS, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 8, 2020) Before JORDAN, GRANT and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 19-15096 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 2 of 9 Adriana Venegas seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her third motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Because we lack jurisdiction to review some of Ms. Venegas’ claims, and because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the remaining claims, we dismiss her petition in part and deny it in part. I Ms. Venegas, a citizen and native of Mexico, entered the United States in May of 1992 without being admitted or paroled. In July of 1997, the government issued a notice to appear for removal proceedings. The notice was served by certified mail with a return receipt requested, and the receipt was returned signed by Ms. Venegas’ husband. After Ms. Venegas failed to appear for the proceedings, the IJ issued an in absentia order of removal against her on November 18, 1997. Ms. Venegas did not administratively appeal that ruling. About thirteen years later, on May 27, 2010, Ms. Venegas filed her first motion to reopen her removal proceedings. She argued, among other things, that she never received notice of the removal proceedings. The IJ denied the motion, rejecting Ms. Venegas’ argument that she did not receive notice based on the return receipt signed by her husband and the fact that her affidavit did not establish that she never received the notice. 2 USCA11 Case: 19-15096 Date Filed: 10/08/2020 Page: 3 of 9 On August 8, 2011, Ms. Venegas filed a second motion to reopen on the same grounds. In her affidavit submitted with the second motion, however, she clamed that her husband never told her about the removal hearing and that he was abusive and likely did not tell her on purpose. The IJ denied the motion, finding that it was numerically barred and that there were not “truly exceptional circumstances” that warranted sua sponte reopening. On October 31, 2018, Ms. Venegas—represented by new counsel—filed a third motion to reopen. Ms. Venegas argued that her motion was not time barred or number barred because under § 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), a petitioner may file a motion to reopen at any time (and any number of times) if she demonstrates that she did not receive proper notice of the removal proceedings. She again asserted that she did not receive notice due to her husband’s abuse. Ms. Venegas also argued that the 180-day deadline for submitting a motion to reopen under INA § 240(b)(5)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), should be equitably tolled because her former attorney—who ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals