Valladares-Ardon v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60366 Document: 00516961068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60366
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 8, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon; Noe Alexander
Quintanilla-Valladares,
Petitioners,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 647 191
Agency No. A206 647 192
______________________________
Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60366 Document: 00516961068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2023
Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon, a native and citizen of Honduras,
timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision denying her motion to reconsider. 1
We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-of-
discretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019).
Under this standard, Valladares-Ardon must identify either a “change in the
law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA
overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005)). The
BIA’s decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or]
utterly without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Pritchett v. INS,
993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)).
We lack jurisdiction to address the issue whether Valladares-Ardon
provided adequate notice of her alleged change of address. She raised this
issue in her motion for rehearing, but did not file a petition for review of the
denial of that motion, and she did not repeat it in her motion for
reconsideration. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1014, 1027 (5th Cir.
2016) (“Separate petitions for review are required to challenge the resolution
of each motion to reopen and reconsider.”). For the same reason, we lack
jurisdiction to consider her contention that a deficient notice to appear
deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Garland, 998
F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Valladares-Ardon’s argument that the BIA should have exercised its sua
sponte authority in this case. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 647
(5th Cir. 2010).
DISMISSED.
_____________________
1
Valladares-Ardon is joined by her son, Noe Alexander Quintanilla-Valladares, as
a derivative applicant.