Cardoza-Bonilla v. Blanche

Opinion

Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

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

____________

FILED

August 17, 2026

No. 25-60640 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Yasmina Marbella Cardoza-Bonilla; Diana Gabriela Recarte-Cardoza,

Petitioners,

versus

Todd Wallace Blanche, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A208 541 915, A208 541 916

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Yasmina Marbella Cardoza-Bonilla, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her proceedings. (Cardoza’s then-minor child, Diana

_____________________

*

This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 25-60640

Gabriela Recarte-Cardoza, was a derivative beneficiary on her application for relief).

Because motions to reopen are “disfavored”, their denial is reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard”. Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The denial will stand unless it 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).

Cardoza contends the BIA erred, under the applicable two-part test, in declining to equitably toll the filing deadline for her untimely motion to reopen because: she acted diligently; and extraordinary circumstances prevented her timely filing. See Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971 F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting 90-day filing deadline for motion to reopen unless equitable tolling applies); Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (requiring petitioner seeking equitable tolling to show “that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and . . . that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way”).

Regarding Cardoza’s contending she acted diligently, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding her failure to show the steps she took to pursue relief during her four years of inaction constituted a lack of diligence. See Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 545. Because, under the two-part test, her lack of diligence is fatal to her equitable-tolling claim, we need not consider her contention, under the second part of the test, that extraordinary circumstances prevented her from timely filing to reopen. See id; INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”).

3

Case: 25-60640 Document: 40-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 25-60640

Finally, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cardoza’s challenge to the BIA’s declining to exercise its discretion to reopen her proceedings sua sponte. See Pena-Lopez v. Garland, 33 F.4th 798, 807 (5th Cir. 2022).

DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.