Mendoza Vasquez v. Garland, No. 22-60369 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-60369 Document: 00516665855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 22-60369 Summary Calendar ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Antolin Mendoza Vasquez, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A215 658 129 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Antolin Mendoza Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the June 2022 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying reconsideration of an October 2021 decision dismissing his appeal of a decision of the immigration judge (“I.J.”) ordering him removed. We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza Vasquez’s challenges to the BIA’s October 2021 decision, as to which Mendoza Vasquez filed no petition for _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60369 Document: 00516665855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 22-60369 review within 30 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 592 (5th Cir. 2021); Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, only the June 2022 decision on reconsideration is before us; we review the BIA’s denial under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2019). As the BIA determined, the motion for reconsideration urged errors only generally while essentially re-urging his arguments on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 86 (2022); Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). Where a challenge to the BIA’s decision on reconsideration can be teased out from Mendoza Vasquez’s arguments about the original agency decisions, he contends only that the purpose of a motion to reconsider is to point out errors in the prior judgment, without acknowledging that he briefs no argument with relevant supporting citations or specific legal authority on the errors to which he alludes. His mischaracterizations of the agency’s decisions, particularly his repeated contentions that the BIA failed to provide reasons, is belied by a review of those decisions. Mendoza Vasquez’s vague, unsupported claims are insufficient to show that the reconsideration decision was “capricious, racially invidious [or] utterly without foundation in the evidence.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80, 83 (5th Cir. 1993)); see Gonzalez Hernandez, 9 F.4th at 283. The petition for review is DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction and 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.
