Victor Reyes-Bonilla v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60824 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction in Part] Judge: WED, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate issue date is 01/08/2018 [16-60824]
Date Filed: 11/15/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
November 15, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
VICTOR ANTONIO REYES-BONILLA,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A094 789 463
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Victor Antonio Reyes-Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Reyes-Bonilla sought to
reopen proceedings on the grounds that he was eligible for a provisional
unlawful presence waiver (I-610A waiver) based on his wife’s approved
immediate relative petition and that he should be allowed to pursue claims for
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 11/15/2017
asylum and withholding of removal based on a change in the conditions in
Reyes-Bonilla argues that the BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen
the proceedings in light of his alleged eligibility for a waiver was based on an
erroneous legal determination. However, the BIA expressly declined to sua
sponte reopen on a discretionary basis, noting that “the potential availability
of an I-610A waiver” did not constitute “an exceptional situation supporting
sua sponte reopening.” We therefore lack jurisdiction over that decision. See
Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2017); EnriquezAlvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 248-50 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).
Additionally, the BIA’s decision that Reyes-Bonilla failed to show that a
material change occurred in El Salvador by failing to submit evidence of the
relevant country conditions in existence at the time of his 2006 removal
hearing was not “capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the
evidence, based on legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations,
or based on unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.”
Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Although Reyes-Bonilla’s evidence showed that
violence has been bad in El Salvador in recent years, it did not allow the BIA to
make a meaningful comparison between the current conditions and the
conditions in the country in 2006. See Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024,
1026 (5th Cir. 2016). Reyes-Bonilla has not satisfied his heavy burden to show
proceedings. See id.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED in part and DISMISSED
in part for lack of jurisdiction.
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?