Feitosa v. Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 2024
Docket23-60314
StatusUnpublished

This text of Feitosa v. Garland (Feitosa v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Feitosa v. Garland, (5th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

Case: 23-60314 Document: 00517021968 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED January 4, 2024 No. 23-60314 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Soeli De Almeida Feitosa,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A096 191 845 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Soeli De Almeida Feitosa, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her second motion to reopen and denying her request for sua sponte reopening. Aside from an exception inapplicable in the instant case, an alien may file only one motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(iv); 8 C.F.R.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60314 Document: 00517021968 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2024

No. 23-60314

§ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); see Dije v. Garland, 39 F.4th 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2022). (“The INA first lays out the number bar: Petitioners generally get one and only one motion to reopen. Then the statute creates one and only one exception.”) (internal citation omitted). Petitioner does not claim she is eligible for the statutory exception. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(iv). Consequently, insofar as Feitosa petitions for review of the denial of her second motion to reopen, the petition is DENIED because the motion was number barred. See Dije, 39 F.4th at 283. The decision whether to reopen proceedings sua sponte is a discretionary one that this court lacks jurisdiction to review. Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 911-12 (5th Cir. 2019). Consequently, insofar as Feitosa petitions for review of the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen her proceedings, the petition is DISMISSED. See id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Abdifatah Gaas Qorane v. William Barr, U. S. Atty
919 F.3d 904 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)
Djie v. Garland
39 F.4th 280 (Fifth Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Feitosa v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feitosa-v-garland-ca5-2024.