Edwin Hernandez v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-60267 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60267 Document: 00513511785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-60267 Summary Calendar FILED May 18, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk EDWIN ALFREDO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A029 994 515 Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edwin Alfredo Hernandez is a native and citizen of El Salvador who was deported from the United States in 1990 and reentered at some unspecified time after that. He seeks our review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his request to reopen his removal proceedings. We review for abuse-of-discretion under a highly deferential standard. Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). The BIA’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-60267 Document: 00513511785 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 No. 15-60267 refusal to reopen sua sponte does not deprive us of jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision. See Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2155 (2015). The BIA reasoned that the motion to reopen was untimely by more than 18 years from September 30, 1996, the latest date on which Hernandez could have timely filed it under 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA also noted that Hernandez’s bid for reopening was “number barred” because it was his third request. The BIA found no exceptional circumstances warranting sua sponte reopening. Hernandez has failed to brief the issues of the time bar, the number bar, or the BIA’s discretion to reopen sua sponte. These crucial issues therefore are abandoned. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (noting that unargued issues are deemed abandoned). Instead, Hernandez argues inaccurately that the BIA failed to consider his contentions in light of a 1988 injunction affording certain procedural safeguards to Salvadorans. The injunction was set forth in Orantes-Hernandez v. Meese, 685 F. Supp. 1488, 1511-14 (C.D. Cal. 1988), and reaffirmed with slight modifications in Orantes-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 504 F. Supp. 2d 825 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Hernandez has not explained how the Orantes-Hernandez injunction affects his case. The petition for review is DENIED. 2