Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 12, 2022
No. 20-60578
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Fernando Resendez Ramos, also known as Jose Resendes
Ramos,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 025 367
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Fernando Resendez Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, has
filed a petition for review, challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) order denying his motion to reconsider its decision affirming the denial
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60578
of his motion to terminate the removal proceedings. According to Resendez
Ramos, the BIA erroneously found that he was conditionally paroled under
§ 236(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) given the
record evidence that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intended
to grant him humanitarian parole under § 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA. Resendez
Ramos also asks this court to grant him a stay of removal. This court reviews
the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider “under a highly deferential abuse-
of-discretion standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although Resendez Ramos received a Form I-94, which is typically
provided to aliens granted humanitarian parole, the form “does not contain
the stamp, as required by regulation, indicating that [Resendez Ramos] was
granted parole under [§] 212(d)(5)(A)” of the INA. Matter of Castillo-
Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. 257, 262 (BIA 2010); see also 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(h)(2).
Instead, the Form I-94 “contains a stamp that explicitly states that [Resendez
Ramos] was released from custody after posting a [$1,500] bond and appears
to merely memorialize his release on bond.” Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec.
at 262. Further, “there was no determination that he should be permitted to
come into the country temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit.” Id. at 261; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A). “Thus,
although [Resendez Ramos] did receive a Form I-94, there is no evidence to
indicate that the Government intended to parole him into the United States
pursuant to [§] 212(d)(5)(A).” Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. at 262. Given
the “highly deferential” standard of review, it cannot be said that the BIA
abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider after deciding that
Resendez Ramos’s release from DHS custody pending the resolution of his
removal proceedings was consistent with conditional parole under § 236(a)
of the INA. See Lowe, 872 F.3d at 715.
2
Case: 20-60578 Document: 00516163996 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/12/2022
No. 20-60578
Resendez Ramos also asks this court to grant him a stay of removal.
Based on the foregoing, however, he has failed to make the requisite “strong
showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits” to be entitled to a stay of
the removal proceedings. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
Resendez Ramos’s petition for review is DENIED. His motion for a
stay of removal is likewise DENIED.
3