Case: 18-60337 Document: 00515612846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 22, 2020 No. 18-60337 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MIRIAN JANNETTE MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ; MIRIAM YAJAIRA MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ; NELSON JEOVANNY MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 182 471 BIA No. A206 182 468 BIA No. A206 182 469 Before OWEN, Chief Judge, and HAYNES and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mirian Jannette Martinez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, seeks review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of her appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). *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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 18-60337 Document: 00515612846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2020 No. 18-60337 Martinez-Martinez concedes that she has abandoned her claim for protection under the CAT. This court reviews the final decision of the BIA and also considers the IJ’s decision to the extent that it influenced the determination of the BIA.1 Findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence and questions of law are reviewed de novo.2 “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper unless we decide ‘not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, but also that the evidence compels it.’”3 Martinez-Martinez argues for the first time on appeal that her original notice to appear (NTA) did not contain the time and place of her removal proceedings, and, therefore, in light of the decision in Pereira v. Sessions,4 the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her proceedings. Martinez-Martinez failed to raise the arguments about the NTA before the BIA; consequently, she did not properly exhaust this issue and we lack jurisdiction to review it.5 Thus, this claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Martinez-Martinez relies on Arce-Vences v. Mukasey,6 in which this court recognized that because “exhaustion is not required when administrative remedies are inadequate[,] . . . [o]ur jurisdiction is . . . not precluded by an alien’s failure to raise before the [BIA] a claim that the [BIA] has no power or authority to remedy.”7 For the Arce-Vences exception to apply, Martinez- Martinez must point to Fifth Circuit law existing at the time her case was 1 Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). 2 Id. at 594. 3 Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 306 (5th Cir. 2005)); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 4 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018). 5 See Flores-Abarca v. Barr, 937 F.3d 473, 477-78 (5th Cir. 2019). 6 512 F.3d 167 (5th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals