Case: 19-60422 Document: 00515725943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 29, 2021 No. 19-60422 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Marluce Soares-Lino, Petitioner, versus Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 064 190 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* In 2005, Marluce Soares-Lino, a native and citizen of Brazil, was personally served with a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging her with being removable as an alien present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. An immigration judge (IJ) later ordered Soares-Lino * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-60422 Document: 00515725943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2021 No. 19-60422 removed in absentia after she failed to appear at her removal hearing. More than 12 years later, Soares-Lino moved to reopen the removal proceedings and rescind the in absentia order, arguing that she did not receive proper notice of her removal hearing because the agents who processed her upon her entry into the United States spoke Spanish, not Portuguese, and she understood only basic things in Spanish. She also requested that the IJ sua sponte reopen the proceedings and argued that a change in country conditions warranted reopening of the proceedings to allow her to file an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied her motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal. In rejecting Soares-Lino’s argument that she did not receive proper notice, the BIA noted that current law did not require the NTA to be in any language other than English, that Soares-Lino was personally served with the NTA, and that she failed to provide the immigration court with an address despite being notified both of her obligation to provide a mailing address and inform the court of any change of address and of the consequences of failing to do so and failing to appear at the hearing. The BIA also agreed with the IJ’s determination that the evidence did not reflect materially changed country conditions in Brazil sufficient to warrant reopening, noting, inter alia, that Soares-Lino failed to “make any meaningful comparison to the country conditions at the time of her hearing.” The BIA further determined that Soares-Lino failed to show that sua sponte reopening was warranted. Soares-Lino now petitions this court for review of the BIA’s dismissal of her appeal. We note that she does not raise any argument challenging the BIA’s determination that sua sponte reopening was not warranted and, thus, that issue is not addressed here. Further, insofar as Soares-Lino asserts that the BIA failed to properly construe her arguments as raising a due process 2 Case: ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals