De Aruanda-Sotero v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 19, 2024
• Docket: 24-60187
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-60187 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2024

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

No. 24-60187 FILED Summary Calendar November 19, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Welder De Aruanda-Sotero,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A098 723 185 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Petitioner Welder De Aruanda-Sotero, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion for reopening and reconsideration. The denial of these motions is reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The BIA’s ruling will stand so long as “it is not capricious, racially invidious,

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-60187 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2024

No. 24-60187

utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017). Because De Aruanda-Sotero offers only conclusory assertions concerning the merits of his claims, he fails to meet this standard. We need not consider his claim concerning the denial of his initial motion to reopen because he filed no petition for review from the denial of this claim. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 394-406 (1995); Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024, 1027 (5th Cir. 2016). Regarding his contention that his due process rights were infringed, foreigners do not have due process rights with respect to discretionary relief. And reopening and reconsideration both fall under discretionary relief. Ramos-Portillo v. Barr, 919 F.3d 955, 963 (5th Cir. 2019); Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 425 (2023). The petition for review is DENIED.