USCA11 Case: 20-11505 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11505
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A208-117-093
MARTHA LIDIA GUTIERREZ-CASTRO,
G. L.Y. M.,
M.M.M.G.,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(December 29, 2020)
USCA11 Case: 20-11505 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 2 of 4
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Martha Lidia Gutierrez-Castro and her two daughters seek review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision affirming the denial of Gutierrez-
Castro’s motion to reopen her removal proceedings sua sponte. On July 30, 2015,
Gutierrez-Castro appeared pro se at a master hearing before the Atlanta
Immigration Court. The immigration judge (IJ) found that she failed to
demonstrate eligibility for relief and ordered her and her children removed to
Guatemala. Of critical importance to this appeal, Gutierrez-Castro did not appeal
that decision to the BIA. Instead, nearly four years later, she filed a “Motion to
Reopen Removal Proceedings Pursuant to Sua Sponte Authority” with the Atlanta
Immigration Court. The IJ denied her motion, and on appeal, the BIA affirmed.
Gutierrez-Castro now seeks review of that order before us.
She makes three arguments in her petition for review. First, she contends
that the IJ from her 2015 hearing denied her due process by failing to provide her
with a list of free legal services. Second, she argues that the same IJ violated her
right to a fair hearing because the judge was unfair and biased. And third, she says
that the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of her motion to sua sponte reopen her
removal proceedings violated due process because it failed to give sufficient
weight to the statements in her motion.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11505 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 3 of 4
Whatever the merits of Gutierrez-Castro’s claims, we lack jurisdiction to
decide them. Two principles control here. First, we lack jurisdiction to review
final orders in immigration cases unless “the alien has exhausted all administrative
remedies available to the alien as of right.” Immigration and Nationality Act
§ 242(d)(1),
8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). If a petitioner has failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies by not raising an issue before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction
to consider the claim. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
463 F.3d 1247, 1250
(11th Cir. 2006). Second, the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings
sua sponte is unreviewable because it is committed to agency discretion. Lenis v.
U.S. Att’y Gen.,
525 F.3d 1291, 1293–94 (11th Cir. 2008).
Gutierrez-Castro’s first two arguments are unexhausted challenges to the IJ’s
2015 decision. She did not appeal that decision to the BIA, so we have no power
to decide her challenges now. It does not change matters that Gutierrez-Castro
couches her arguments in constitutional terms. To be sure, we’ve said that some
constitutional challenges do not require administrative exhaustion. Bing Quan Lin
v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
881 F.3d 860, 867–68 (11th Cir. 2018). But others do. “Where
the claim is within the purview of the BIA which can provide a remedy, the
exhaustion requirement applies with full force.”
Id. at 868 (quoting Sundar v.
I.N.S.,
328 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2003)). Thus, “[w]here a procedural due
process claim falls within the immigration courts’ power to review and provide a
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11505 Date Filed: 12/29/2020 Page: 4 of 4
remedy, the claim must be exhausted before it can be considered by this Court.”
Bing Quan Lin, 881 F.3d at 868. Gutierrez-Castro’s claims are precisely the sort of
due process claims that the BIA could have considered: They challenge the
fairness of the procedures that the IJ accorded her during her 2015 hearing and do
not raise “a larger challenge to the immigration process beyond the power of the
BIA to address.” Id. Because her claims are unexhausted, we lack jurisdiction to
consider them.
Gutierrez-Castro’s third argument challenges the BIA’s denial of her motion
to reopen sua sponte. But that decision is committed to agency discretion, and thus
is unreviewable.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
PETITION DISMISSED.
4
