Medrano Gonzalez v. Garland, No. 22-60304 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-60304 Document: 00516587001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60304 Summary Calendar FILED December 22, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Anselmo Medrano Gonzalez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A090 766 086 Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Anselmo Medrano Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen. Motions to reopen are “disfavored” and are reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304–05 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60304 Document: 00516587001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 No. 22-60304 quotation marks and citation omitted). Review of the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Medrano Gonzalez had not shown he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance of his attorneys. See Diaz v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 2018). Consequently, the BIA’s decision was not “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach,” and the abuse of discretion standard has not been met. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Insofar as Medrano Gonzalez maintains that counsels’ poor performance amounts to a due process violation, that argument is likewise unavailing. See Diaz, 894 F.3d at 228; Mai v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 2006). The petition for review is 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.