Gomez-De Saravia v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2021
• Docket: 19-60674
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-60674 Document: 00515828675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2021

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

FILED April 20, 2021 No. 19-60674 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Maria Mercedes Gomez-De Saravia,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A208 538 949

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Maria Mercedes Gomez-De Saravia petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her motion to reopen. She argues that a recent Supreme Court case, Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), necessitates reopening and termination of her removal proceedings

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60674 Document: 00515828675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2021

No. 19-60674

and, alternatively, that Pereira renders her eligible for post-conclusion voluntary departure and thus the time and number limitations associated with motions to reopen should be equitably tolled. Here, the BIA denied the motion to reopen as time and number barred. Alternatively, the BIA held that on the merits Pereira did not apply to Gomez-De Saravia’s case. We do not address Gomez-De Saravia’s argument that the 90-day period for filing a motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled. This court reviews an immigration court’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Garcia-Nuñez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018). We find that Gomez-De Saravia’s arguments regarding Pereira are precluded by our precedent. Pierre-Paul v. Barr, 930 F.3d 684, 689-90 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2718 (2020); see also Mauricio-Benitez, v. Sessions, 908 F.3d 144, 148 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018). Her arguments do not concern the stop time rule and so her case was not changed by the decision in Pereira. Id. We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-De Saravia’s argument concerning the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions, 877 F.3d 223, 227 (5th Cir. 2017). AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.