Juan Sandoval-Chavez v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Case: 16-60737 Document: 00514290595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 16-60737
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar January 2, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
JUAN SANDOVAL-CHAVEZ, Clerk
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A074 569 315
Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Sandoval-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to
reopen.
In 2013, in conjunction with Sandoval’s admitting to being removable for
applying for admission into the United States without possession of valid
travel documents, Sandoval’s counsel advised Sandoval intended to apply for
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 16-60737 Document: 00514290595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2018
No. 16-60737
derived citizenship through his father and adjustment of status through his
wife, both United States citizens. His counsel, however, never filed such
applications, and the IJ granted voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed
Sandoval’s appeal.
Sandoval filed a statutory motion to reopen after the 90-day deadline,
asserting his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The BIA denied his motion to reopen as untimely and
refused to exercise its discretion to grant his motion to reopen sua sponte under
8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b) or 1003.2(a).
Sandoval does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his statutory motion to
reopen as untimely. Instead, he asserts the BIA abused its discretion in
refusing to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte because counsel
representing him during his removal proceedings provided ineffective
assistance. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua
sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Enriquez-Alvarado v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248–50 (5th Cir. 2004).
DISMISSED.
2