Esperanza Silva-Solis v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 16-17710 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-17710 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A097-828-139 ESPERANZA SILVA-SOLIS, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 2, 2018) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 2 of 3 Esperanza Silva-Solis, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to its sua sponte authority. The Government filed a motion to dismiss Silva-Solis’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and we previously ordered the Government’s motion be carried with the case. Both the BIA and the IJ have the authority to reopen removal proceedings or reconsider earlier decisions pursuant to their sua sponte authority at any time. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Butka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278, 1283 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Butka v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 299 (2017). We have held, however, that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) provides no meaningful standard against which to judge the BIA’s exercise of its discretion. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1292-94 (11th Cir. 2008). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Silva-Solis’s motion to reopen under the BIA’s sua sponte authority. See Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1293. Although we have potentially reserved jurisdiction to review such decisions where constitutional issues are implicated, no such claims are present in this case. See id. at 1294 n.7; Butka, 827 F.3d at 1284. Silva-Solis’s claim, that the BIA “abused its discretion” by violating her due process rights when it failed to consider her evidence of 2 Case: 16-17710 Date Filed: 08/02/2018 Page: 3 of 3 changed law, is an abuse of discretion argument that is not “colorable” as a constitutional issue. See Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283-84 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding, in the context of constitutional challenges to final orders of removal that would otherwise be unreviewable by us, that such constitutional claims must be “colorable” and not simply abuse of discretion arguments disguised in constitutional language). Silva-Solis’s argument regards the BIA’s failure to consider an alleged change in law, which this Court has held it lacks jurisdiction to consider. See Butka, 827 F.3d at 1285-86; Lenis, 525 F.3d at 1292, 1294. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion and dismiss Silva-Solis’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. PETITION DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
