Brooks v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2025
• Docket: 25-60026
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-60026 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-60026 September 16, 2025 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Adetokunbo Abosede Brooks,

Petitioner,

versus

Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A028 988 727 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Adetokunbo Abosede Brooks, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reconsider as untimely and, alternately, meritless. We review the denial of a motion “for reconsideration under a highly deferential abuse- of-discretion standard.” Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 283

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-60026 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2025

No. 25-60026

(5th Cir. 2021). Pursuant to this standard, the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration will stand “unless it is 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard has not been met. She shows no error in connection with the BIA’s timeliness determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B). Because this is an adequate basis on which to deny the petition as to her challenge to the BIA’s reconsideration decision, there is no need to consider her arguments concerning its merits. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Her due process arguments fail because she has no due process rights with respect to the discretionary remedy of reconsideration. See Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 425 (2023); Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2019). Finally, insofar as her arguments are directed to the BIA’s initial affirmation of the Immigration Judge’s decision, we will not consider them because there is no outstanding petition for review from that decision. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024, 1027 (5th Cir. 2016). The petition for review is DENIED.