Esperanza Flores v. Jefferson Sessions, III, No. 16-60575 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-60575 Document: 00514419652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-60575 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 6, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ESPERANZA FLORES, 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. A097 310 154 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Esperanza Flores, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed her appeal of an order of an immigration judge denying rescission of a removal order and denying reopening of removal proceedings. We conclude that Flores is entitled to no relief, as she fails to show that the BIA abused its discretion by ruling against her. See Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-60575 Document: 00514419652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 No. 16-60575 We reject the claim of exceptional circumstances because Flores did not move for reopening within 180 days of the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Also, Flores’s claim that notice of the removal hearing was mailed to the wrong address is unexhausted because it was not raised before the BIA, and thus we are without jurisdiction to entertain it. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). Additionally, we reject Flores’s claim that precedent concerning whether an alien must be advised of an immigration hearing in a language that she understands is inapplicable in the instant case. See Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2013). Further, any other issues are deemed abandoned for failure to brief them. See Lara v. Johnson, 141 F.3d 239, 242 n.3 (5th Cir. 1998). The petition for review is DENIED. The Government’s motion for summary disposition is DENIED as unnecessary. 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.
