Ramid Jose Medina-Valiente v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 19-13949 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13949 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A078-409-213 RAMID JOSE MEDINA-VALIENTE, MARIELA COLMENARES-MEDINA, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 26, 2020) Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 19-13949 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 5 Ramid Medina-Valiente and Mariela Colmenares-Medina (collectively, “the Medinas”) seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The Medinas argue that (1) the BIA failed to afford reasoned consideration to the issue of whether the statutory deadline for filing their motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled, and (2) they were entitled to equitable tolling. We review our own subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 2006). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision unless the petitioners have exhausted all administrative remedies available to them. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1297 (11th Cir. 2015). Petitioners fail to exhaust all administrative remedies regarding a specific claim when they neglect to raise that claim before the BIA. Id. This requirement is not “stringent.” Id. It merely requires the petitioners to have previously argued the “core issue” now on appeal before the BIA, as well as to have set out any discrete arguments supporting the claim. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 800 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). Although they are not required to “use precise legal terminology” or present a well-developed argument supporting their claim, the petitioners must “provide information sufficient to enable the BIA to review and correct any errors below.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The exhaustion requirement precludes review of a claim that was not presented to the 2 Case: 19-13949 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 3 of 5 BIA even where the BIA elected to address the issue sua sponte. Amaya-Artunduaga, 463 F.3d at 1250-51. We generally review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). Aliens must file a motion to reopen their removal proceedings within 90 days of the date of the final administrative order of removal, subject to several statutory exceptions. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240(c)(7), (C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), (C). We have held that the deadline is also subject to equitable tolling. Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 713 F.3d 1357, 1362-64 (11th Cir. 2013). Aliens who move to reopen proceedings based on new evidence must show that the evidence (1) is material, (2) was unavailable at the time of the original hearing, and (3) could not have been discovered or presented at the original hearing. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). To show that they are eligible for equitable tolling, litigants must demonstrate ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals