eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-02

Guardado-Guardado v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-60103        Document: 00516630815             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________                             United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60103                             February 1, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
____________
Clerk
Luis  Adonay   Guardado-Guardado;   Luis   Alonso
Guardado-Orellana;  Roxana   Lisseth    Guardado-
Orellana,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency Nos. A206 225 344, A206 225 332, A206 225 333
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Luis Adonay Guardado-Guardado and his two minor children, Luis
Alonso Guardado-Orellana and Roxan Lisseth Guardado-Orellana, petition
for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
their motion to reopen and terminate. We review the BIA’s decision “under
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60103     Document: 00516630815          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/01/2023
No. 22-60103
a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Garcia v. Garland,
    28 F.4th 644
    , 646 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Citing Niz-Chavez v. Garland,
    141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)
    , and Pereira v.
Sessions,
    138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018)
    , the petitioners argue that their notices to
appear failed to provide the immigration court with jurisdiction and violated
their due process rights because the notices to appear did not state the date
and time of their hearings. Circuit precedent forecloses the argument. See
Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland,
    43 F.4th 477
    , 480 (5th Cir. 2022); Garcia, 28
F.4th at 646-48. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this
claim on the merits, we need not consider the petitioners’ argument
regarding equitable tolling. See INS v. Bagamasbad,
    429 U.S. 24
    , 25 (1976).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ challenge to the
BIA’s refusal to reopen their cases sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v.
Sessions,
    866 F.3d 302
    , 306 (5th Cir. 2017); Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions,
    875 F.3d 199
    , 206-07 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition
for review in part due to lack of jurisdiction on the issue of sua sponte
reopening and otherwise deny the petition.
DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2