Onyido v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60097 Document: 00516931983 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60097
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 16, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Basil Uzoma Onyido, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A029 891 590
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Proceeding pro se, Basil Uzoma Onyido, a native and citizen of Nigeria
who was deported to Nigeria in 1999, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his sixth motion to reopen and
reconsider. See, e.g., Jaco v. Garland, 24 F.4th 395, 400 (5th Cir. 2021) (“We
construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally.”).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60097 Document: 00516931983 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2023
No. 23-60097
“[Our] court reviews the denial of motions to reopen and for
reconsideration under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”
Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2021). We will
affirm “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”. E.g., Zhao v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
An alien may file only one motion to reopen unless an exception—
inapplicable here—applies. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). When a motion to
reopen is number-barred, the resulting petition for review “must be denied”.
Djie v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 287–88 (5th Cir. 2022). An alien is likewise
limited to only one motion to reconsider. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A).
Because this is not Onyido’s first motion either to reopen or to
reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. In
addition, our court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal sua sponte to
reopen proceedings. E.g., Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911–12 (5th Cir.
2019).
DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
2