Wilson Rivera-Torres v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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