Centeno-Santiago v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-60187
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Alma Sofia Centeno-Santiago, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A098 487 880
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Alma Sofia Centeno-Santiago, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing
her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her 2019 motion to reopen,
which sought rescission of the 2004 removal order entered against her in
absentia.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60187 Document: 00516980016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/27/2023
No. 23-60187
Motions to reopen are “disfavored”; review is “under a highly
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Mauricio-Benitez v. Sessions, 908
F.3d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Under this standard, our
court will affirm unless the agency’s decision is “capricious, without
foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather
than the result of any perceptible rational approach”. Id. (citation omitted).
Review of the BIA’s factual findings is for substantial evidence; the findings
are overturned only “if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion”. Id.The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s on
whether Centeno fulfilled her obligation to keep the immigration court
apprised of her current address. E.g., id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(B) (“No
written notice shall be required under subparagraph (A) if the alien has failed
to provide the address required . . . .”). She, therefore, forfeited her right to
notice of her hearing, and the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen was not
arbitrary. See Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland, 70 F.4th 232, 243 (5th Cir. 2023)
(“[A]n alien [can] forfeit [her] right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B),
regardless of whether the [notice to appear] contained the hearing time and
place, if the alien failed to provide the immigration court with a mailing
address at which [she] could be notified”.). Because she forfeited her right
to notice by failing to update her mailing address, her other contentions have
no bearing on the BIA’s denying her motion to reopen.
DENIED.
2