Orellana-Espinosa v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60068 Document: 00516747227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60068
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 11, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Sergio Orellana-Espinosa, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A078 965 065
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Sergio Orellana-Espinosa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge denying his
motion to reopen his proceedings based on lack of notice. Motions to reopen
are “disfavored” and are reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60068 Document: 00516747227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-60068
discretion standard.” Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland, 19 F.4th 802, 806 (5th Cir.
2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard
requires a ruling to stand so long as it is not “capricious, irrational, utterly
without foundation in the evidence based on legally erroneous interpretations
of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures from
regulations or established policies.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Orellana-Espinosa’s conclusional assertions concerning
actual notice and his reliance on a materially distinguishable case fail to meet
this demanding standard. Insofar as he raises arguments concerning the
correctness of the addresses in his notice to appear, we lack jurisdiction over
these claims because they were not first presented to the BIA. See Martinez-
Guevara v. Garland, 27 F.4th 353, 359-60 (5th Cir. 2022); 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1). The petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction.
2