Margarita Rivas-Portillo v. Jefferson Sessions, II, No. 16-60553 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60553 Document: 00514220663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-60553 Summary Calendar FILED November 1, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MARGARITA YAMILETH RIVAS-PORTILLO, 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. A206 733 115 Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Margarita Yamileth Rivas-Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the denial of her motion to reopen her in absentia removal proceedings, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. She claims the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred by affirming the denial of her motion. An alien may be ordered removed in absentia if she fails to appear for her scheduled hearing after receipt of proper notice, and if the Government Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 16-60553 Document: 00514220663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2017 No. 16-60553 establishes she is removable. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A). An in absentia removal order may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen if the alien demonstrates the failure to appear was because of “exceptional circumstances”. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). There was no abuse of discretion in denying Rivas’ motion to reopen. Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). Rivas’ mistaken belief her hearing would be transferred and rescheduled is not an exceptional circumstance justifying the reopening of her proceedings. De Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1997). Additionally, the BIA’s order “reflect[s] meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting the alien’s claims”. Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996). DENIED. 2

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.