Case: 22-60140 Document: 00516655492 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60140 FILED February 24, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A091 374 218 ______________________________ Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * San Juana Alvarez-De Sauceda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), denying reconsideration of its denial of a number barred motion to reopen. _____________________ * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 22-60140 Document: 00516655492 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023 No. 22-60140 This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As long as the BIA’s decision “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach,” it will be upheld. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Alvarez-De Sauceda argues that the BIA committed legal error when it found that her Notice to Appear (NTA), which failed to include the date and time of her removal hearing, vested the immigration court with jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. She acknowledges, however, that her jurisdictional argument based on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), runs counter to this court’s binding precedent in Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated in part on other grounds by Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1479-80 (2021), and Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2021), but states that she is raising the issue to preserve it for further review. This court held in Pierre-Paul that a defect in an NTA does not deprive an immigration court of jurisdiction over removal proceedings. 930 F.3d at 691-93. Though the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez abrogated Pierre-Paul in part, this court confirmed in Maniar that the jurisdictional holding from Pierre-Paul remains “the law of [this] circuit,” even after Niz- Chavez. See Maniar, 998 F.3d at 242 n.2. Thus, there is no merit to Alvarez- De Sauceda’s contention that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over her removal proceedings. See Pierre-Paul, 930 F.3d at 693. Alvarez-De Sauceda further argues that the BIA erred in finding that she was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) based on her prior conviction for the Texas felony offense of possession of 50 pounds or less but more than five pounds of marijuana, 2 Case: 22-60140 Document: 00516655492 Page: 3 Date …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals