Gomez-De Saravia v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 19-60674 Document: 00515828675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 20, 2021
No. 19-60674
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Maria Mercedes Gomez-De Saravia,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 538 949
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Maria Mercedes Gomez-De Saravia petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. She
argues that a recent Supreme Court case, Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105(2018), necessitates reopening and termination of her removal proceedings
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-60674 Document: 00515828675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021
No. 19-60674
and, alternatively, that Pereira renders her eligible for post-conclusion
voluntary departure and thus the time and number limitations associated
with motions to reopen should be equitably tolled. Here, the BIA denied the
motion to reopen as time and number barred. Alternatively, the BIA held
that on the merits Pereira did not apply to Gomez-De Saravia’s case. We do
not address Gomez-De Saravia’s argument that the 90-day period for filing a
motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled.
This court reviews an immigration court’s denial of a motion to
reopen removal proceedings “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Garcia-Nuñez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018). We
find that Gomez-De Saravia’s arguments regarding Pereira are precluded by
our precedent. Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert.
denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020); see also Mauricio-Benitez, v. Sessions, 908 F.3d
144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018). Her arguments do not concern the stop time
rule and so her case was not changed by the decision in Pereira. Id.We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-De Saravia’s argument
concerning the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions,
877 F.3d 223, 227 (5th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2