Zafar v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60052 Document: 00516746495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
___________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60052
FILED
May 11, 2023
Summary Calendar
___________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Muhammad Arsalan Zafar,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review from an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A096 602 139
______________________________
Before Stewart, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Muhammad Arsalan Zafar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to
reopen his immigration proceedings sua sponte. Zafar asserts he is not
seeking to overturn the Board’s decision. Rather, he asks us to remand his
case to the Board and instruct it to set cognizable standards for assessing
motions to reopen sua sponte. The Government moves to dismiss the
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60052 Document: 00516746495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 23-60052
petition for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary affirmance.
We agree with the Government that we lack jurisdiction to reach
Zafar’s arguments on the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings sua
sponte. Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019); Eneugwu v.
Garland, 54 F.4th 315, 319–20 (5th Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we GRANT IN
PART the Government’s motion to dismiss and DISMISS IN PART the
petition for review.
We do, however, have jurisdiction to consider constitutional
questions arising from such motions. See Mejia, 913 F.3d at 490. To the extent
Zafar argues that the lack of governing standards violates his due process
rights, this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent as “no liberty interest
exists in a motion to reopen.” Id. Accordingly, summary affirmance is
proper. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
1969); see also Balboa-Longoria v. Gonzales, 169 F. App’x 383, 384–85 (5th Cir.
Feb. 27, 2006). Thus we further GRANT the Government’s alternative
request for summary affirmance and DENY IN PART the petition.
2