Wilson Rivera-Torres v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60812 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES, Judge: RHB. [16-60812]

Download PDF
Case: 16-60812 Document: 00514229586 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60812 Summary Calendar FILED November 8, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk WILSON ANTONIO RIVERA-TORRES, Petitioner v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A099 651 038 Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wilson Antonio Rivera-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, moved to reopen to challenge his in absentia removal order entered in 2006. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Rivera moved to reconsider, which the BIA also denied. He petitions for review of only the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 16-60812 Document: 00514229586 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 No. 16-60812 “[T]he BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider [is reviewed] under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Le v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Because Rivera has not petitioned for review of the BIA’s underlying order dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to that order. Bright v. Holder, 649 F.3d 397, 399 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); Guevara v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to review any issue Rivera did not exhaust by first presenting it to the BIA. E.g., Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318–19 (5th Cir. 2009). Rivera fails to address how the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Instead, he asserts: the notice of the removal hearing was improperly served on an attorney who no longer represented him; he was not required to comply with the procedural requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; or, in the alternative, he had substantially complied with those requirements and the BIA erred in requiring strict compliance. But, Rivera did not present these points to the BIA in his reconsideration motion; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Bright, 649 F.3d at 399 n.1; Omari, 562 F.3d at 318–19. DISMISSED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?