Valladares-Ardon v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-60366
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60366 Document: 00516961068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60366 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ November 8, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon; Noe Alexander Quintanilla-Valladares,

Petitioners,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent. ______________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206 647 191 Agency No. A206 647 192 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: *

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60366 Document: 00516961068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2023

Rosa Herminia Valladares-Ardon, a native and citizen of Honduras, timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying her motion to reconsider. 1 We review the denial of a motion to reconsider under an abuse-of- discretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). Under this standard, Valladares-Ardon must identify either a “change in the law, a misapplication of the law, or an aspect of the case that the BIA overlooked.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005)). The BIA’s decision will stand unless it was “capricious, racially invidious [or] utterly without foundation in the evidence.” Id. (quoting Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)). We lack jurisdiction to address the issue whether Valladares-Ardon provided adequate notice of her alleged change of address. She raised this issue in her motion for rehearing, but did not file a petition for review of the denial of that motion, and she did not repeat it in her motion for reconsideration. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1014, 1027 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Separate petitions for review are required to challenge the resolution of each motion to reopen and reconsider.”). For the same reason, we lack jurisdiction to consider her contention that a deficient notice to appear deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. See Maniar v. Garland, 998 F.3d 235, 242 (5th Cir. 2021). Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Valladares-Ardon’s argument that the BIA should have exercised its sua sponte authority in this case. See Lopez-Dubon v. Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 647 (5th Cir. 2010). DISMISSED.

_____________________ 1 Valladares-Ardon is joined by her son, Noe Alexander Quintanilla-Valladares, as a derivative applicant.