Glendon Assis Miranda v. U.S. Attorney General , 624 F. App'x 738 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •              Case: 15-11536    Date Filed: 12/09/2015   Page: 1 of 5
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 15-11536
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    Agency No. A200-853-258
    GLENDON ASSIS MIRANDA,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    ________________________
    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    ________________________
    (December 9, 2015)
    Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Glendon Miranda, a native and citizen of Brazil, proceeding pro se, petitions
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
    February 2015 motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. Miranda argues
    Case: 15-11536     Date Filed: 12/09/2015   Page: 2 of 5
    that: (1) the immigration judge (“IJ”) exhibited bias in his removal proceedings
    and erred in concluding that his children’s medical conditions did not constitute
    exceptional and extremely unusual hardship; and (2) the BIA erred in affirming the
    IJ’s decision and that reopening should have been granted in light of those errors.
    After thorough review, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part.
    We review our subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Chao Lin v. U.S. Att’y
    Gen., 
    677 F.3d 1043
    , 1045 (11th Cir. 2012). Typically, we review for abuse of
    discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings, and our
    review is limited to determining whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an
    arbitrary or capricious manner. Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    572 F.3d 1316
    , 1319
    (11th Cir. 2009). Where a petitioner seeks review of the denial of a motion to
    reopen based on the BIA’s sua sponte authority, however, we lack jurisdiction over
    that claim. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 
    525 F.3d 1291
    , 1292-93 (11th Cir. 2008).
    As an initial matter, the law-of-the-case doctrine bars Miranda’s challenge to
    his final order of removal. Under this doctrine, an appellate court’s fact-findings
    and conclusions of law are generally binding in all later proceedings in the same
    case. Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Pieniozek, 
    585 F.3d 1399
    , 1405 (11th Cir.
    2009).   The law-of-the-case doctrine may only be overcome if: (1) new and
    substantially different evidence is produced; (2) controlling authority has changed;
    2
    Case: 15-11536     Date Filed: 12/09/2015    Page: 3 of 5
    or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest
    injustice. Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 
    230 F.3d 1275
    , 1288 (11th Cir. 2000).
    To the extent that Miranda seeks to challenge the BIA’s final order affirming
    the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, the law of the case
    doctrine applies. Miranda presents the same arguments on that issue in the instant
    appeal as he did in Miranda v. U.S. Att’y Gen. (“Miranda I”), 561 F. App’x 809
    (11th Cir. 2014) (unpublished), and we previously concluded that we lacked
    jurisdiction to review that claim because Miranda’s petition for review was
    untimely.   Furthermore, Miranda has not presented any new or substantially
    different evidence, does not contend that controlling authority has changed, and
    has not demonstrated that Miranda I was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we deny
    Miranda’s petition to the extent that it challenges his final order of removal.
    As for his challenge to the denial of his second motion to reopen, we lack
    jurisdiction to review it. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), an
    alien may file one motion to reconsider within 30 days of the BIA’s final order of
    removal, specifying the errors of law or fact in the BIA’s order. 8 U.S.C. §
    1229a(c)(6); 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b). An alien may also file one motion to reopen
    removal proceedings within 90 days of the BIA’s final order of removal, which
    must state new facts that would be proven at a hearing if the motion were granted
    and be supported by affidavits or other evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R.
    3
    Case: 15-11536    Date Filed: 12/09/2015   Page: 4 of 5
    § 1003.2(c). Further, the BIA retains the authority to reopen removal proceedings
    or reconsider a prior decision sua sponte at any time. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
    We liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants, holding them to a
    less stringent standard than those prepared by lawyers. Campbell v. Air Jamaica
    Ltd., 
    760 F.3d 1165
    , 1168 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    135 S. Ct. 759
    (2014).
    Nevertheless, “issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed
    abandoned,” and will not be considered. Timson v. Sampson, 
    518 F.3d 870
    , 874
    (11th Cir. 2008).
    Contrary to the government’s assertions, Miranda expressly claimed in his
    brief that he sought review of that decision and argued that reopening was
    warranted based on the IJ’s errors. Thus, Miranda has not abandoned his challenge
    to the BIA’s March 2015 denial of his second motion to reopen. Nevertheless, we
    lack jurisdiction to review that decision. As the BIA noted, Miranda’s motion was
    time- and number-barred, since it was filed more than 90 days after the issuance of
    the BIA’s final order of removal and was Miranda’s third motion seeking
    reconsideration and/or reopening. Consequently, the BIA only could have granted
    reopening through its sua sponte authority. In fact, Miranda explicitly requested
    that the BIA exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen his removal proceedings.
    Because we lack jurisdiction to review a petition challenging the denial of a motion
    4
    Case: 15-11536    Date Filed: 12/09/2015   Page: 5 of 5
    to reopen based on the BIA’s sua sponte authority, we dismiss the part of
    Miranda’s petition challenging the BIA’s March 2015 order.
    DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
    5