Case: 19-60238 Document: 00515307794 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 19-60238 February 12, 2020 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk TURBIDES LEON-SAVILLON, Petitioner v. WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A079 033 621 Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Turbides Leon-Savillon, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying his motion to remand and dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings and to rescind his in absentia removal order. Leon contends his notice to appear (NTA), which he was provided in April 2001, was defective for failing to include the time and place of his removal * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 19-60238 Document: 00515307794 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 No. 19-60238 proceedings, relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2113–14 (2018) (so holding for purposes of triggering 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A)’s stop-time rule for continuous presence calculations). Consequently, according to Leon, the immigration court never obtained jurisdiction over him under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), and the IJ’s ordering his removal, in absentia, pursuant to § 1229a(b)(5)(A), was impermissible. Further, Leon asserts the IJ and BIA failed to properly consider his sworn statement that he provided an address when taken into custody upon entering the United States and challenges the BIA’s finding the record evidence directly contradicts this assertion. Finally, he contends: the Government should have obtained his address by calling the telephone number he provided; he was not provided a form on which to provide his address; and the BIA failed to consider whether evidence showed his Form I-213 (showing an address was not provided) was incorrect. For obvious reasons, the denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Therefore, the BIA’s decision must be upheld unless it is “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Furthermore, we must use the substantial evidence test to review the BIA’s factual conclusion[s] . . .”. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Under this standard, “we may not reverse the BIA’s factual determinations unless we find . . . the evidence compels it”. Id. (citations omitted). 2 Case: 19-60238 Document: 00515307794 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2020 No. 19-60238 Concerning Leon’s claim about his NTA’s being defective, our court’s precedent ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals