Solache Galarza v. Garland

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 11, 2023·No. 22-60489·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60489 Document: 00516747738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023

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

FILED No. 22-60489 May 11, 2023 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk J. Guadalupe Solache Galarza,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A091 244 973 ______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * J. Guadalupe Solache Galarza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen. We lack jurisdiction to consider Solache Galarza’s challenge to the discretionary decision not to reopen his

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60489 Document: 00516747738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023

No. 22-60489

proceedings sua sponte. See Mejia v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 482, 490 (5th Cir. 2019). Jurisdiction does exist to review Solache Galarza’s arguments to the extent that he asserts that his due process rights were violated as he is no longer removable as charged. See id. However, his due process arguments are unavailing and not cognizable because “no liberty interest exists in a motion to reopen.” Id. Solache Galarza’s petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in part. Additionally, the Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

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

Solache Galarza v. Garland, (5th Cir. 2023).

Solache Galarza v. Garland (Solache Galarza v. Garland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jose Mejia v. Matthew Whitaker
913 F.3d 482 (Fifth Circuit, 2019)