Case: 19-10753 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-10753 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A072-843-908 GUSTAVO ROJAS-LOPEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. __________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals _________________________ (January 15, 2020) Before JILL PRYOR, TJOFLAT and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-10753 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 2 of 7 Gustavo Rojas-Lopez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings to request cancellation of removal. Rojas asserts the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his diligence arguments because it did not meaningfully consider the relevance of the outcomes of his family members’ immigration proceedings or the effect of recent case law interpreting provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Rojas also contends the BIA erred by affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion to reopen on the merits because he was diligent in arguing his conviction under section 893.13(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes no longer qualified as an “illicit trafficking aggravated felony” based on recent judicial interpretations of INA provisions. After review,1 we deny the petition. I. DISCUSSION A. Reasoned Consideration The BIA and IJ must give “reasoned consideration” to an alien’s petition. Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1232 (11th Cir. 2013). “A reasoned-consideration examination does not look to whether the agency’s 1 When the BIA issues a decision, we review only that decision, except to the extent the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. Chacku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 555 F.3d 1281, 1285 (11th Cir. 2008). Here, because the BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, we review only the BIA’s decision. Id. 2 Case: 19-10753 Date Filed: 01/15/2020 Page: 3 of 7 decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 874 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). “Rather, it looks to see whether the agency has considered the issues raised and announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. Where the agency has given reasoned consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings, we will not require the agency address specifically each claim made by the petitioner or each piece of evidence presented. Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1374 (11th Cir. 2006). The BIA gave reasoned consideration to Rojas’s arguments. See Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1286, 1289 (11th Cir. 2014) (reviewing whether the BIA gave reasoned consideration to an alien’s claims de novo). First, the BIA found Rojas was not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to act diligently by filing his motion to reopen seven years after his order of removal and three-and- a-half years after the “change of law” in Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General, 735 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals