Case: 18-60281 Document: 00514897944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60281 FILED April 2, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JORGE LUIS REYES SALAZAR, Reyes-Salazar, also known as Jorge Luis Reyes-Salazar, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A201 183 231 Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Luis Reyes Salazar, a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen, for reconsideration, and for adjustment of status. In his motion, he challenged the BIA’s decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60281 Document: 00514897944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2019 No. 18-60281 under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his imputed political opinion and his membership in a particular social group consisting of his family. This court reviews the denial of motions to reopen and motions for reconsideration under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016); Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). Under this standard, this court will not disturb the BIA’s decision, even if the court determines that the BIA decision is “in error, so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so aberrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 1142 (5th Cir. 1984). In his petition for review, Reyes Salazar argues that the BIA erred by failing to grant his motion for reconsideration to correct the IJ’s legal and factual mistakes and the BIA’s application of the incorrect credibility standard on appeal. Further, he contends that his motion for reconsideration was not time barred, as the BIA determined, because it was subject to equitable tolling. 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). When seeking reconsideration, an alien may either invoke the BIA’s regulatory power to sua sponte reconsider proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) or invoke the statutory right to reconsider proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). See Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340-41 (5th Cir. 2016). While the filing of a statutory motion to reconsider is subject to time constraints, a regulatory motion to reconsider may be filed at any ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals