Wilson Rivera-Torres v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 16-60812 Document: 00514229586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60812 FILED Summary Calendar November 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WILSON ANTONIO RIVERA-TORRES, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A099 651 038 Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wilson Antonio Rivera-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, moved to reopen to challenge his in absentia removal order entered in 2006. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Rivera moved to reconsider, which the BIA also denied. He petitions for review of only the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-60812 Document: 00514229586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 No. 16-60812 “[T]he BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider [is reviewed] under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Because Rivera has not petitioned for review of the BIA’s underlying order dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to that order. Bright v. Holder, 649 F.3d 397, 399 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to review any issue Rivera did not exhaust by first presenting it to the BIA. E.g., Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir. 2009). Rivera fails to address how the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Instead, he asserts: the notice of the removal hearing was improperly served on an attorney who no longer represented him; he was not required to comply with the procedural requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; or, in the alternative, he had substantially complied with those requirements and the BIA erred in requiring strict compliance. But, Rivera did not present these points to the BIA in his reconsideration motion; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Bright, 649 F.3d at 399 n.1; Omari, 562 F.3d at 318–19. DISMISSED. 2 16-60812 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ca5 5th Cir. Wilson Rivera-Torres v. Jefferson Sessions, III 8 November 2017 Immigration Unpublished 8cc49e58b8e9907601af683ee412d6afcba25d55

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals