Herrera Calle v. Garland, No. 22-60388 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-60388 Document: 00516661062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-60388 Summary Calendar ____________ March 1, 2023 FILED Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Guillermo De Jesus Herrera Calle; Brahyan Herrera Ruiz; Dione Julieth Ruiz Arias, Petitioners, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206 389 051 Agency No. A206 389 052 Agency No. A206 389 053 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Guillermo De Jesus Herrera Calle petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying a motion to reconsider a decision overturning an Immigration Judge’s grant of asylum and _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60388 Document: 00516661062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2023 No. 22-60388 withholding of removal and remanding for consideration of eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 1 We must always be aware of our jurisdiction. Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 302 & n.3 (5th Cir. 2005). Under our statutory authority, we may review a “final order of removal” in immigration proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1); see Moreira v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 709, 713 (5th Cir. 2007). Our jurisdiction to review final orders of removal “encompasses review of decisions refusing to reopen or reconsider such orders.” Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143, 147 (2015) (internal citations omitted). Because Herrera Calle’s petition for review challenges neither a final order of removal nor a “decision[] refusing to reopen or reconsider” a final order of removal, Mata, 576 U.S. at 147, we lack jurisdiction over it. See § 1252(a)(1). The petition for review is DISMISSED. _____________________ 1 The other petitioners were derivatives on Herrera Calle’s application for relief. 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.