eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-04

Ansari v. Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-60107     Document: 00515819944         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 13, 2021
No. 20-60107                      Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar                         Clerk
Imran Haroon Ansari, also known as Alex,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A078 505 565
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Imran Haroon Ansari, a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his
motion to reopen his removal proceedings, declining to sua sponte reopen,
and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order denying a
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60107     Document: 00515819944           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/13/2021
No. 20-60107
motion to reopen. He has also moved for a stay of removal and a stay of the
proceedings.
Motions to reopen removal proceedings are “disfavored, and the
moving party [must] bear[] a heavy burden.” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales,
    435 F.3d 547
    , 549-50 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). We review an immigration court’s denial of a motion to reopen
removal proceedings “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch,
    831 F.3d 337
    , 340 (5th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA “abuses its
discretion when it issues a decision that is capricious, irrational, utterly
without foundation in the evidence, based on legally erroneous
interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on unexplained departures
from regulations or established policies.”
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Ansari argues that the BIA should have reopened the removal
proceedings under
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.23
    (b)(4)(i), so that he could pursue relief
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his evidence of
changed circumstances in India. Ansari, however, has failed to show that the
BIA abused its discretion in determining that he did not make a prima facie
showing that he was entitled to CAT relief. See
    8 C.F.R. § 208.16
    (c)(2);
Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 340; Chen v. Gonzales,
    470 F.3d 1131
    , 1139 (5th
Cir. 2006). Because Ansari has failed to show that a legal barrier prevented
the BIA from exercising its sua sponte authority to reopen the removal
proceedings, we lack jurisdiction to review his alternative argument that the
BIA erred when it declined to do so. See Qorane v. Barr,
    919 F.3d 904
    , 911-
12 (5th Cir. 2019); Rodriguez-Saragosa v. Sessions,
    904 F.3d 349
    , 355 (5th
Cir. 2018).
2
Case: 20-60107      Document: 00515819944            Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/13/2021
No. 20-60107
Finally, Ansari contends that the immigration courts erred in
declining to reopen the removal proceedings so that he could file an
application for cancellation of removal in light of Pereira v. Sessions,
    138 S. Ct. 2105
     (2018), and that we should enter a stay of removal and stay of the
proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Barr,
    141 S. Ct. 84
    , 84 (U.S. June 8, 2020). Because Ansari does not challenge in
his opening brief the immigration courts’ finding that he failed to submit with
his motion to reopen an application for cancelation of removal, as required by
§ 1003.23(b)(3), he has abandoned the issue. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
    324 F.3d 830
    , 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Moreover, Ansari’s reliance on the grant of
certiorari in Niz-Chavez is unavailing. See Yanez-Pena v. Barr,
    952 F.3d 239
    ,
245-46 (5th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Apr. 8, 2020) (No. 19-
1208). We are bound by our precedents unless and until those precedents
are altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. Wicker v. McCotter,
    798 F.2d 155
    , 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986); see Thompson v. Dallas City Att’y’s Office,
    913 F.3d 464
    , 467 (5th Cir. 2019).
Accordingly, Ansari’s petition for review is DENIED in part and
DISMISSED in part. His motions for a stay of removal and to stay the
proceedings are DENIED.
3