Clavel-Avelar v. Garland

Case: 21-60563 Document: 00516019398 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
___________ FILED
September 17, 2021
No. 21-60563 Lyle W. Cayce
___________ Clerk
Juana Beatriz Clavel-Avelar,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A099 541 381
______________________________
Before King, Smith, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Juana Beatriz Clavel-Avelar appeals from the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order denying her motion for reconsideration. The Board issued
three orders below. The first denied her appeal from the immigration judge’s
decision. The second denied her motion to reopen the case. The third denied
her motion for reconsideration.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60563 Document: 00516019398 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2021
No. 21-60563
Clavel-Avelar argues that the Board erred in denying her motion for
reconsideration because her appeal was meritorious (taking issue with the
Board’s first order) and that her motion to reopen the case was timely (taking
issue with the Board’s second order). But neither of those issues is before the
court. The only issue before this court is whether the Board correctly denied
Clavel-Avelar’s motion for reconsideration.
The Board denied her motion for reconsideration because the motion
did not state any new argument or point out an argument that the Board had
overlooked. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (“[A]
motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence,
the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally
alleging error in the prior Board decision.”). Clavel-Avelar does not dispute
that her motion for reconsideration raised no new argument. Because Clavel-
Avelar cannot dispute that her motion did not comply with the requirements
for motions for reconsideration, “there can be no substantial question as to
the outcome of the case.” United States v. Vazquez-Ovalle, 851 F. App’x 497,
498 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
1162 (5th Cir. 1969)).
Therefore, the Government’s motion for summary disposition is
GRANTED and the judgment of the Board of Immigration Appeals is
AFFIRMED.
2