Maira Argueta-Martinez v. William Barr, U. ( 2019 )

Case: 18-60800 Document: 00515207943 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-60800 November 21, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MAIRA DE LOS ANGELES ARGUETA-MARTINEZ; CARLOS STEVEN
CARRANZA-ARGUETA,
Petitioners
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A208 742 678
BIA No. A208 742 679
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Maira De Los Angeles Argueta-Martinez and her minor son, Carlos
Steven Carranza-Argueta, are natives and citizens of El Salvador. After an
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed their appeal of the IJ’s decision and
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-60800 Document: 00515207943 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2019
No. 18-60800
denied their motions to reconsider and reopen. They now petition this court
for review of the BIA’s decision regarding their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT relief. They also challenge the BIA’s denial
of their motion to reopen and reconsider.
The petitioners did not argue before the BIA, as they do here, that their
notices to appear were defective under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105(2018), and therefore, that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over their immigration
proceedings. Because the petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies as to this issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. Omari v. Holder,
562 F.3d 314, 320–21 (5th Cir. 2009). We likewise lack jurisdiction to consider
the BIA’s April 11, 2017 order dismissing the petitioners’ appeal of the IJ’s
decision denying relief because they did not file a petition for review of that
order. Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing Stone v.
INS, 514 U.S. 386, 390 (1995)); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).
With respect to the motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s decision that the petitioners were not entitled to a sua sponte reopening
of their immigration proceedings. See Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
246, 248–50 (5th Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Mata v. Lynch, 135
S. Ct. 2150, 2155–56 (2015). We also lack jurisdiction to consider the
petitioners’ newly raised, and therefore unexhausted, argument that they were
entitled to equitable tolling of the applicable limitations period in connection
with their motion to reopen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). See Omari, 562
F.3d at 320–21. Because the petitioners do not address the denial of the motion
to reconsider, they have abandoned the issue by failing to adequately brief it.
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and
DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.
2