Guardado-Guardado v. Garland, No. 22-60103 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-60103 Document: 00516630815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60103 Summary Calendar ____________ February 1, 2023 FILED Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Luis Adonay Guardado-Guardado; Luis Alonso Guardado-Orellana; Roxana Lisseth GuardadoOrellana, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A206 225 344, A206 225 332, A206 225 333 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Luis Adonay Guardado-Guardado and his two minor children, Luis Alonso Guardado-Orellana and Roxan Lisseth Guardado-Orellana, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen and terminate. We review the BIA’s decision “under _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60103 Document: 00516630815 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2023 No. 22-60103 a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Garcia v. Garland, 28 F.4th 644, 646 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Citing Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021), and Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), the petitioners argue that their notices to appear failed to provide the immigration court with jurisdiction and violated their due process rights because the notices to appear did not state the date and time of their hearings. Circuit precedent forecloses the argument. See Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 480 (5th Cir. 2022); Garcia, 28 F.4th at 646-48. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this claim on the merits, we need not consider the petitioners’ argument regarding equitable tolling. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). We lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s refusal to reopen their cases sua sponte. See Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2017); Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 199, 206-07 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review in part due to lack of jurisdiction on the issue of sua sponte reopening and otherwise deny the petition. DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 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.
