Rosendo Benito Rangel-Perez v. U.S. Attorney General , 523 F. App'x 671 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 12-16504   Date Filed: 07/18/2013   Page: 1 of 7
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 12-16504
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    Agency No. A094-809-903
    ROSENDO BENITO RANGEL-PEREZ,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ________________________
    (July 18, 2013)
    Before CARNES, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 12-16504      Date Filed: 07/18/2013      Page: 2 of 7
    Rosendo Rangel-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision denying his (1) motion for
    reconsideration of the BIA’s denial of his first motion to reopen, and (2) second
    motion to reopen. Through these motions, Rangel-Perez sought to reopen his
    application for cancellation of removal, filed pursuant to the Immigration and
    Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a). For the reasons that
    follow, we dismiss in part and deny in part Rangel-Perez petition for review.
    I. JURISDICTION
    Ordinarily, we retain jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen
    or to reconsider. See Kucana v. Holder, 
    558 U.S. 233
    , 252-53, 
    130 S. Ct. 827
    , 840
    (2010) (concluding that INA § 242(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not
    strip courts of jurisdiction to review denials of motions to reopen or reconsider
    made pursuant to 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.2). 1 We lack jurisdiction, however, to review the
    denial of an application for cancellation or removal under § 1229b except in
    appeals that raise a constitutional claim or a question of law. INA
    § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); see also
    Alhuay v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    661 F.3d 534
    , 549-50 (11th Cir. 2011); Martinez v.
    U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    446 F.3d 1219
    , 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006). Under our binding
    precedent, when review of the underlying order is barred by the INA’s jurisdiction-
    1
    “We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    463 F.3d 1247
    , 1250 (11th Cir. 2006).
    2
    Case: 12-16504       Date Filed: 07/18/2013       Page: 3 of 7
    stripping provisions, we also lack “jurisdiction to entertain an attack on that order”
    mounted through a motion to reopen or motion for reconsideration. Patel v. U.S.
    Att’y Gen., 
    334 F.3d 1259
    , 1261-62 (11th Cir. 2003).
    Here, the IJ’s final removal order, affirmed by the BIA, denied Rangel-
    Perez’s request for cancellation of removal because he did not establish the
    hardship requirement. Whether an applicant demonstrates the “exceptional and
    extremely unusual hardship” needed for cancellation of removal is a discretionary
    determination not subject to review. See 
    Alhuay, 661 F.3d at 549-50
    . Under our
    binding precedent, we therefore also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of any
    motions to reopen or reconsider that determination. See 
    Patel, 334 F.3d at 1262
    .
    Thus, to the extent Rangel-Perez argues that the BIA abused its discretion in
    denying (1) his motion to reconsider the denial of his first motion to reopen; or (2)
    his second motion to reopen, we dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2
    II. LEGAL CLAIMS
    Although we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional or legal claims,
    Rangel-Perez raises two legal errors that are wholly without merit. We explain
    why.
    2
    We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to sua sponte reopen removal
    proceedings. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    525 F.3d 1291
    , 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, we
    cannot review Rangel-Perez’s alternative argument that the BIA abused its discretion in not
    reopening his case sua sponte.
    3
    Case: 12-16504     Date Filed: 07/18/2013    Page: 4 of 7
    Rangel-Perez’s motion for reconsideration and second motion to reopen
    were both based on new evidence of his wife’s recent diagnosis of fibromyalgia.
    The BIA denied the motion for reconsideration because Rangel-Perez’s motion did
    not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying his first
    motion to reopen. The BIA denied Rangel-Perez’s second motion to reopen as
    both time-barred and number-barred. See INA § 240(c)(7)(A) &(C), 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229a(c)(7)(A) &(C) (limiting motions to reopen to one motion filed within
    ninety days of the final order of removal).
    A.    Second Motion to Reopen
    Rangel-Perez does not dispute that his motion to reopen was his second and
    that it was not filed within ninety days of his removal order. Instead, Rangel Perez
    argues, without citing any authority, that the BIA nonetheless was required as a
    matter of law to remand his case to the IJ to consider whether, in light of his new
    evidence, he now met the hardship requirement. However, the only motions to
    reopen not subject to the time and/or number limitations are motions to reopen
    asylum applications based on changed country conditions and motions to reopen
    based on allegations of a battered spouse, child, or parent. See 
    id. § 240(c)(7)(A), (C)(ii)
    & (iv), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(ii) & (iv). Rangel-Perez’s second
    motion to reopen did not fall within either of these exceptions, and thus was both
    time- and number-barred.
    4
    Case: 12-16504       Date Filed: 07/18/2013      Page: 5 of 7
    Rangel-Perez also argues that as a matter of law the BIA was required to
    remand his case to the IJ because of an intervening change in the BIA’s precedent.
    Rangel-Perez contends Matter of Morales, decided after his final removal order,
    required the IJ to consider the hardship to his stepson in addition to his wife. See
    25 I. & N. Dec. 186, 187 (BIA 2010) (concluding that a stepparent qualifies as a
    “parent” for purposes of establishing the hardship requirement for cancellation of
    removal). 3
    Given that the purpose of a motion to reopen is to present new facts, it is
    doubtful a motion to reopen is the proper vehicle to argue a change in the law. See
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) (requiring motion to reopen to “state the new facts that will be
    proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted” and to be “supported by
    affidavits or other evidentiary material”); In re O-S-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 57 (BIA
    2006) (explaining that while a motion to reconsider “contests the correctness of the
    [BIA’s] original decision based on the previous factual record,” a motion to reopen
    “seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence”). In any
    event, Rangel-Perez fails to cite any authority supporting his claim that a second
    motion to reopen based on a change in the law is exempt from the INA’s time and
    number limitations. Indeed, the provision of the INA that governs motions to
    3
    The government contends that Rangel-Perez failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA.
    Rangel-Perez’s motions filed with the BIA, however, argued that stepchildren could be
    considered in hardship determinations and cited Matter of Morales.
    5
    Case: 12-16504      Date Filed: 07/18/2013    Page: 6 of 7
    reopen does not include such an exception. See INA § 240A(c)(7), 8 U.S.C.
    § 1229b(c)(7).
    B.    Motion for Reconsideration
    Unlike a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
    § 1003.2(b) may be based on a change in the law. See In re O-S-G, 24 I. & N.
    Dec. at 57 (“A motion to reconsider is a request that the Board reexamine its
    decision in light of . . . a change of law . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    A motion to reconsider, however, must also show a factual or legal error in the
    BIA’s prior decision—in this case, the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s denial of
    Rangel-Perez’s first motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); In re O-S-G,
    24 I. & N. Dec. at 56-57.
    Here, however, there was no legal error in the BIA’s prior decision in light
    of Matter of Morales. Contrary to Rangel-Perez’s contention, the IJ in fact
    considered the hardship to Rangel-Perez’s stepson when he denied Rangel-Perez’s
    application for cancellation of removal. Specifically, the IJ considered both
    Rangel-Perez’s “wife, and/or stepson” to be “qualifying relatives,” discussed the
    hardships they would suffer and concluded that Rangel-Perez did not show the
    requisite level of hardship. In affirming the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal,
    the BIA agreed that the hardships “his wife and stepchild will suffer” did not rise
    to the level needed for cancellation of removal. As such, the IJ’s denial of
    6
    Case: 12-16504     Date Filed: 07/18/2013    Page: 7 of 7
    cancellation of removal was consistent with Matter of Morales, and, in light of the
    lack of legal error, the BIA had no reason to reconsider its prior decision to
    denying Rangel-Perez’s first motion to reopen.
    PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
    7