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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 both that they have “been pursuing [their] rights diligently,” and “some
extraordinary circumstance stood in [their] way.” Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,
717 F.3d 847, 851 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
The BIA may also, in its discretion, at any time, reopen removal proceedings
or reconsider earlier decisions pursuant to its sua sponte authority. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a). We have held that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a
motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority because 8 C.F.R.
3
Case: 19-13949 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 4 of 5
§ 1003.2(a) provides no meaningful standard against which to judge the BIA’s
exercise of its discretion. Lenis v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1292-94 (11th
Cir. 2008). We have also stated that we lack jurisdiction to review legal claims
related to the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings sua sponte. Butka v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278, 1285-86 (11th Cir. 2016). However, we retain
jurisdiction to review nondiscretionary grounds for the denial, including that the
motion to reopen was time-barred, as well as “challenges to the legal reasoning
offered by the BIA.” Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 871 (11th Cir.
2018).
Claims that the agency failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue or
applied the wrong legal standard in making a determination are questions of law that
we review de novo. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 799. In a reasoned-consideration
examination, we look to whether the agency has “consider[ed] the issues raised and
announce[ed] its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive
that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. at 803 (quotation marks
omitted and alterations in original). “[T]he agency does not give reasoned
consideration to a claim when it misstates the contents of the record, fails to
adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions, or provides justifications for
its decision which are unreasonable and which do not respond to any arguments in
the record.” Id.
4
Case: 19-13949 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 5 of 5
Here, the petitioners never raised the issue of whether the statutory deadline
for filing the motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled, so the BIA could
not have failed to give reasoned consideration. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803. The BIA
did not misstate the contents of the record and never had the opportunity to fail to
adequately explain its rejection of logical conclusions or to fail to provide
justifications for an unreasonable decision. See id.
For the same reason, we lack jurisdiction to consider the Medinas’ underlying
claim that they were entitled to equitable tolling, as they did not raise it before the
BIA. In other words, they failed to exhaust their claim that they were entitled to
equitable tolling. Instead, petitioners requested the BIA to exercise its sua sponte
authority to reopen despite their untimeliness, which we also lack jurisdiction to
review. 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1); see Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d at 1294.
Accordingly, we dismiss the Medinas’ petition for review to the extent that
they argue that they were entitled to equitable tolling, and we deny the petition with
respect to their argument that the BIA did not afford reasoned consideration to the
issue.
DISMISSED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
5