Flores-Esparza v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 22-60041 Document: 00516555560 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 23, 2022
No. 22-60041 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Monica Lucila Flores-Esparza,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A089 935 033
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Monica Lucila Flores-Esparza, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions us for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying
her motion to reconsider that is based on her previously denied cancellation
of removal claim.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-60041 Document: 00516555560 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2022
No. 22-60041
Review of a motion to reopen is disfavored. Lara v. Trominski, 216
F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, this court reviews the denial of
a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.”
Id. This standard requires a ruling to stand, even if this court concludes that
it is erroneous, “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly
without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is
arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao
v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The BIA addressed Flores-Esparza’s cancellation claims on the
merits, finding that her daughter would not suffer the requisite hardship to
support a grant of cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to consider
Flores-Esparza’s cancellation arguments because the BIA’s decision on that
relief is “a discretionary and authoritative” one barred from our review
pursuant to Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621-22 (2022). Castillo-
Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Because we may not
review the BIA’s ruling denying cancellation of removal, we need not address
the issue whether Flores-Esparza’s daughter was rendered ineligible as a
qualifying relative when she turned 21 years old. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
DISMISSED.
2