Case: 18-14485 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-14485 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A091-151-653 MARIA CLAUDIA DIAZ VEGA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 28, 2019) Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Maria Diaz Vega petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), Case: 18-14485 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 2 of 5 filed 16 years after her final order of removal. She argues that the BIA failed to meaningfully address her claims for statutory reopening with equitable tolling because it failed to meaningfully consider her claim of due diligence in regard to her request for the BIA to equitably toll the 90-day deadline for submitting a motion to reopen. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse of discretion. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). This review is limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Id. Although decisions not to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, the decision not to reopen sua sponte is committed to agency discretion by law, and this discretion is so wide and lacking in a meaningful standard against which to judge it that it is non-reviewable. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1293-94 (11th Cir. 2008). Where a petitioner challenges the BIA’s nondiscretionary grounds for denying a motion to reopen, we must affirm if the BIA’s decision is based on reasoned consideration and shows that the BIA made adequate findings to support the outcome. Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 871-72 (11th Cir. 2018). We review de novo claims of legal error, including claims that the BIA did not provide reasoned consideration of its decision. Id. at 872. The usual rules regarding proper presentation of issues for purposes of waiver and abandonment 2 Case: 18-14485 Date Filed: 06/28/2019 Page: 3 of 5 also apply to petitions to review. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005) (providing that issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned). In evaluating a motion to reopen, the BIA must make reasoned consideration of a movant’s claims. Lin, 881 F.3d at 874. We do not look to whether the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, but instead look to see whether the BIA “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.” Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 803 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). However, the BIA need not specifically address each claim or piece of evidence ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals