Nunez-Mena v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60216 Document: 00516330768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 24, 2022
No. 20-60216
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Lorenzo C. Nunez-Mena, also known as Angel Luis
Gonzalez-Ortiz, also known as Victorianao Perez-
Dominguez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 968 227
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Lorenzo C. Nunez-Mena, a native and citizen of Honduras, was twice
ordered removed in 2014 and barred from reentry for 20 years. In 2019,
Nunez-Mena was arrested in Louisiana. When the Department of Homeland
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60216 Document: 00516330768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2022
No. 20-60216
Security (DHS) moved to reinstate his removal order, Nunez-Mena claimed
he feared returning to Honduras because he had allegedly been targeted by a
criminal group protected by the Honduran police. DHS did not find Nunez-
Mena credible and referred his case to an Immigration Judge (IJ), who found
he had no valid claim. Nunez-Mena now petitions this court for review.
Because his petition is untimely, we DISMISS it for lack of jurisdiction.
We must independently assess our own jurisdiction. MidCap Media
Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc., 929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019). We lack
jurisdiction over a petition for review filed more than 30 days after the final
order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330
F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003). The IJ’s order was issued February 12, 2020,
making any petition due by March 13, 2020. Nunez-Mena’s petition, which
was postmarked March 17, 2020, was not received by the clerk until March
19, 2020, six days after expiration of the 30-day deadline. It was therefore
untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(i).
In response, Nunez-Mena argues he was detained and deposited his
petition into the prison mail system on March 10, 2020, before the deadline.
We assume arguendo that the prison mailbox rule applies here. Compare
Curuta v. Off. of Chief Admin. Hearing Off., 398 F.3d 329, 330–31 (5th Cir.
2005), with Adon v. Holder, 582 F. App’x 479, 479 (5th Cir. 2014). Even so,
Nunez-Mena’s petition would still be untimely because it did not comply
with the federal rules. See Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii) (prison mailbox
rule applies if filing deposited by due date along with sworn or notarized
statement setting out information on deposit date and postage). We decline
to exercise our discretion to permit a late-filed declaration or statement
setting out facts to the contrary. Ibid.The petition for review is DISMISSED. All pending motions are
DENIED AS MOOT.
2